The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Nzrsaa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution more rationtal than creationism/god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,680 times Debate No: 42400
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Every time I get asked to supply evidence for evolution I supply it. However, every time I ask for proof of a creator (to clarify the creationism position) I get told you need to believe it. For this reason I open this debate evolution more rational than creationism/god.

This challenge is open to any creationist (intelligent design) proponent. The opponent is necessarily a theist who thinks creationism is more rational than intelligent design.

This debate will have four rounds.
Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: Scientific evidence for evolution from Pro.
Scientific evidence for a creator from Con.
Round 3: Rebuttals.
Round 4: Closing statements and no new arguments.

Nzrsaa

Con

I accept, I guess I could have a stab at it.
I look forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this challenge and I hope we can have a great debate.

In my multiple discussions with creationists both online and in real life the one thing I always get asked is to show the evidence for evolution. Then once I have shown the evidence for evolution the question goes a step further and I get asked to show the evidence for the transitional fossils.(1) Another term that is used for transitional fossil is the term favored by creationists and is called the "missing link". Regardless of the nomenclature a transitional fossil can be defined as "fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants".(2)

In my opinion, I think transitional fossils are the second most convincing evidence for evolution. The first piece of evidence which can not be doubted is DNA evidence.(3) However, in this debate I wish to discuss fossil evidence as it is an easy visual observation of evolution that does not require a scientific understanding of DNA evolution or even what DNA is. An example of fossil transitional forms is given here to show the unmistakable transitional form of the gray whale. From 50 million years ago we can see how the nostrils of the gray whales ancestor have moved from the front of the skull to the top of the skull in the modern day gray whale. Additionally,there are other features in these fossils that have changed such as teeth becoming smaller between the fossil from 50 million years ago and the gray whale skull today.




Picture source.(1)

These fossils of the gray whale should be evidence enough of transitional fossils, and evolution. However I would like to show evidence of an even more important transitional fossils for us humans. These fossils are the transitional forms between Chimpanzees and Humans. One of the biggest errors perpetuated by creationists is that we are descended from monkeys.(4) However, this is a complete misrepresentation of the evolution of man, as we are not descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestry.(5) Additionally, it should be noted that chimpanzees are not monkeys but are in fact apes. In the figure below it is obvious to see that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor which lived between 3 and 2 million years ago. The difference between these fossils and they way the split into the two different branches towards humans and apes is defined using brain size and other defining skeletal characteristics.

Timeline of hominid species

Picture source.(5)

Looking at this figure above, it is obvious that there are multiple transitional fossils which bridge the gap between chimpanzees and humans. Another very important point to realize with regards to transitional forms of species is that they are able to exist at the same time as other species. This can be seen even in the recent Australopithecus sediba fossils which has been dated to between 1.8 to 2 million years ago and which coexisted at the same time as other Homo species.(6,7) This fossils and the other Homo species all branch the divide between chimpanzees and humans. More proof that transitional forms can exist at the same time as other species is noted in humans which share DNA with Neanderthals.(8) As Neanderthals and Humans are two different species the only way they can share DNA is if they lived at the same time and interbred.

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk...; width="478" height="303" />

Picture source (8)

In this argument I have tried to show the following three important points regarding evolution. (a) Transitional fossils exist, (b) transitional fossils exist showing that Humans and Chimpanzees shared a common ancestor and (c) that transitional species co-exist at the same time as other species. I think this brief argument shows that transitional fossils or the so called "missing links" do exist. These transitional fossils even exist to show that humans share a common ancestry with Chimpanzees. For this reason I believe we can safely say that these fossils prove without any doubt that evolution is a fact.

I hand the debate back to my opponent and cant wait to hear his evidence for a creator.

(1) http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
(2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
(3) http://humanorigins.si.edu...
(4) http://www.answersingenesis.org...
(5) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(6) http://www.sciencemag.org...
(7) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(8) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Nzrsaa

Con

Hi Pro! I look forward to what looks like being an interesting debate.
I will present just the one argument it this debate:
Argument from Quantum Mechanics
To start with, we need to have a look at one particular experiment - The Double slit experiment. In the experiment, electrons were fired through a double slit; and if it went through both slits, then the electrons were in wave form. If they went through only one slit, then they were in the form of individual particles. What the results showed, was that before measurement, the electrons went through both slits - they were wave functions (potentials). However, upon upon observance, the electrons acted like tiny bits of matter - they only went through one slit. So what they concluded was that the very act of measuring (observing), meant that the wave function collapsed, and turned into matter. [1] So in other words, particles do not exist without observation.
This then transverses to the macro world, as proved by by Brukner and Kofler [2], and by other double slit experiments, used with larger molecules [3].
So what we need to see here is that the whole of the macro world is built by the quantum world. To illustrate this, Erwin Schr"dinger set up a thought experiment. [4] he imagined a cat, and some poison in a box, along with some radioactive uranium and a geiger counter. If the uranium decays, it sets off the counter, which releases the poison and kills the cat. Until we open the box, there is no way to determine whether the cat is dead - as quantum decay is a random quantum event. So the question is, is the cat dead or alive? Well, according to quantum Physics, the cat is neither dead nor alive. But this is impossible, obviously. So the purpose of the thought experiment is, nothing is certain until we measure it.
Eugene Wigner saw this, and saw the implications of these discoveries. He saw that he, a conscience, looks at the cat, and determines it's existence. Therefore consciousness determines existence! Wigner then made one more step, and asked: "How do i know if i'm alive?" If he determined the cat's existence, then what determines his own existence? We can say that another conscience determines our existence. But what determins that? We will have to go into a regress of consciences, until we reach 'cosmic consciousness' - some consciousness looks down onto the universe, and determines all of our existences.
But what about God? Well this fits entirely into the concept of God - a being that exists outside of the universe, that created everything, and sustains it as well; complying also in God's attributes of Omniscience, Omnipresence and immateriality. So we can formulate the argument like this:

1) Molecules only exist when they are observed.
2) We, made of Particles, exist.
3) We, existing, must therefore be observed by another conscience.
4) There is a regress of observers until we reach 'Cosmic Consciousness'.
5) There is therefore a consciousness that exists outside of the universe.
6) We call this observer God.

I look forward to the next round.

Sources:
[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
[2] http://meetings.aps.org...
[3] http://www.livescience.com...
[4] http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

I thank my opponent for an interesting argument for the existence of a god, however this argument is flawed. In this round I will show my opponent why the quantum argument for the existence of God is flawed.

The Young's double slit experiment is a very important experiment, however my opponent has reached the wrong conclusion regarding the experiment. Firstly my opponent has said that "particles do not exist without observation." While this may sound true by considering that the particle can either go through one or both slits depending if it is observed or not, it rejects the particle/wave duality which is an integral part of quantum mechanics.(1) So while it is true that when you observe a wave function it collapses and then you can observe a particle moving through a single slit in the experiment, you are then negating the wave function. If you negate the wave function then electronic states of a particle are no longer important and then we miss out on important science like semiconductors, photo conduction, catalysts and other intrinsic properties associated with materials which can only be explained using wave functions.(2)

My opponent has also said that this behaviour is also observed on a much larger scale than electrons like in the experiments using buckminsterfullerene and other large organic molecules. (3,4) Then my opponent states that what we need to realise is that "the whole of the macro world is built by the quantum world". I agree with my opponent, but as I have shown in the previous paragraph this does not mean the wave part of the duality disappears it still has to be present otherwise all our molecules loose intrinsic properties.

My opponent then introduced the concept of Schrödinger's Cat, to say that "nothing is certain until we measure it." Well, yes this is true but you seem to be forgetting that this is based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice verse."(5) This is important, as it has profound implications for our understanding of matter and the universe around us. As we can only know one part of a system, but never the other parts of the system at the same time.(6,7) This means we can either know which hole the particle is going through in the double slit experiment, or we can know the wave function is allowing it to go thorough both holes.

This is why my opponents argument fails, as if the quantum world is part of everything then we can only know one part of the system by observation. That means that we can never know all the parts of a system at one time which is what would be expected of an Omniscient god. So my opponent s formulation of his argument is wrong as Quantum Mechanics proves the opposite of what he claims. I wish to address my opponents argument in point form here as well.

1) Molecules only exist when they are observed.
This means we are neglecting the wave function, and so the particles we are observing are not what we know. They lose all their other intrinsic properties when observed as we can only know one property at a time. As this statement is incorrect then all the statements that follow are incorrect due to statement 1 been falsifiable.

I will address the following claims briefly, but again they are all null as the initial claim has been shown to be false.
2) We, made of Particles, exist.
Sure, but statement 1 is incorrect.
3) We, existing, must therefore be observed by another conscience
No, as by been observed we are only one property.
4) There is a regress of observers until we reach 'Cosmic Consciousness'.
No, as we have no proof of this cosmic consciousness.
5) There is therefore a consciousness that exists outside of the universe.
No, as then it is not testable and it cannot interact with us. If it can interact with us it becomes testable.
6) We call this observer God.
So God is a deity that observes and as such can be tested.

I hand the debate back to my opponent to hear the rebuttals for evolution.

(1) http://www.princeton.edu...
(2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
(3) http://www.nature.com...
(4) http://www.nature.com...
(5) http://www.aip.org...
(6) http://www.aip.org...
(7) http://www.aip.org...
Nzrsaa

Con

Hi Pro!

I think that first, I will state that I am not going to deny the evidence that Pro presented for evolution. Rather, I will deny the reasoning used - reasoning which I believe to be self-refuting, illogical, and ultimately unreasonable. In that way, Creationism will emerge as the more reasonable world-view.

Evolutionary argument against Evolutionism
My first argument uses the very concept of Evolution to suggest that evolutionism 'shoots itself in the foot' so to speak. Essentially, you can't rationally accept that Evolutionism is correct.
First, let's establish the central belief of the Evolutionist:
All life arose through Natural Selection
So what can we establish from this basic belief?
Well to start with, imagine a population of creatures on a distant planet, who came to be by means of evolution. Whatever form they are in is because of millions of years of natural selection. Their behaviour therefore is adaptive - arising because it was beneficial to survival and reproduction. The adaptive behaviour is caused by events in their brains, which we can call the 'underlying neurology'. This, therefore, is also adaptive - it came about because of natural selection. This neurology also causes our beliefs. A belief from this point of view, is an event or structure in a person's nervous system. In more detail, the underlying neurology will be a neurostructure of some kind, and has two kinds of properties; neurophysiological properties - properties that detail the working of the brain (we can call them 'NP properties' for short), but if it is really a belief, it will also have a 'content' property - there will be a belief of 'p' - for example, that tigers are dangerous. But, in order to survive, it doesn't matter if these beliefs are true or false - as long as the underlying neurology causes adaptive behaviour, it will cause fitness and the organism will continue to survive and reproduce. It could be that their belief is that sabre-tooth tigers are friendly, and the way to hug them is to run away from them - in which case, the belief is false, but it causes fitness. This could and probably is the case for most of the creatures' beliefs; as long as any particular belief causes fitness, it makes no difference if it is true or false or not. There is no driving force or objective standard for truth upon this view. But how are these two pieces of neurology related? Well, according to evolutionists, the NP properties determine the content properties. Now what this ultimately means is that the content properties - the beliefs - have no binding on truth; they are merely the result of a blind process based on survival, and not truth.
So if you take any particular belief, the chances that they are true therefore is about 50/50 - the probability that all of the creatures' beliefs are true is very low. But here's the thing - Evolutionists believe that we came about by the same processes - so, we can conclude that if evolutionists are right, then they cannot rationally believe evolution to be true, as Evolution in itself is a belief! It will just be another content property, that came about by NP properties that have no binding on truth, so the probability that evolutionists are right, by their very own beliefs, is low.
[1], [2], [3]

So, we can set out an argument:
1) Evolutionists believe that all life evolved through natural selection.
2) However, that belief is a defeater for itself
3) Therefore, you cannot rationally believe evolution by natural selection to be true.

Occam's Razor
The second point that I want to make here is that Evolution violates Occam's Razor in a severe way.
Occam's razor is the logical law that states that the "simplest answer is most often correct". [4] To give an example:
'One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations, a) A moose ran through it or b) some screws fell out of it because it is old, "b" is the more likely explanation.' [5]
So, it is more rational to believe the most simple answer. So, let us think. What is the more simple answer, Evolutionism or Creationism? Well, I would strongly suggest that creationism is the more simple explanation. Evolution is vastly complex; it is a minefield of undiscovered fossils, hinging assumptions, unobservable macro changes and Natural processes. Natural selection is extremely complex as a concept, which requires certain environments and certain mutations at certain times for the finished product. This has to transverse to the whole animal kingdom. It requires billions of years in order for it to occur. What about creationism? Well, creationism states that a transcendent being (God) created the universe and everything in it a finite time ago. This is vastly more simple than the complex theory of evolutionism.
Now Pro may respond by saying that our background information of evolution increases the probability. But I would stress that in the debate, I hope that I have shown how evolutionism falls short, and I think that there is just as much - if not more evidence of creation. One may point towards my first argument, or the fact that the universe is so finely-tuned as equally convincing background evidence, so the two theories are assumed to be of equal strength. (although arguments for those are for another debate!)
So, Creationism is the simpler explanation. That means that it is the more rational to believe.
Please note, I am not saying that because of Occam's Razor, Evolution is false, or that Creationism is true. I am merely stating that in terms of rationality, the complexity of evolutionary theory means that Creationism is the more rational between the two. (Through the laws of Occam's Razor)

What evolution cannot account for
Here, I want to reason that there are certain aspects of life that cannot reasonably be explained by Evolutionary Theory, especially with such a short time scale to work with, and in fact are so unlikely on an evolutionary world view that it just cannot be accepted with reason or rationality. These would include:
-The origin of life (Abiogenesis)
-The origin of Consciousness
-The origin of Genders

Just to name a few.
So if someone is adopting an evolutionary worldview, it is simply irrational, because for it to occur, the time-scale required is far, far beyond the age of the earth. In their book 'The Anthropic Cosmological principle', Barrow and Tipler concluded that by the time certain aspects of Evolution would have occurred, "the sun would cease to be a main sequence star and incinerate the earth."[6]

Conclusion
Overall, I have given three reasons why I believe Evolutionism to be unreasonable: 1) The very belief that we arose from the Evolutionary Process is a defeater in itself; 2) Evolution is a violation of the logical law of Occam's Razor; and 3) The time-scale required for evolution to occur is far beyond the time the earth has even existed. In this way, I believe Creationism to be a more rational hypothesis than Evolutionism.

I look forward to the final round.

Sources:
[1] http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com...
[2] http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com...
[3] http://www.calvin.edu...
[4] http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
[5] Ibid
[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 3
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for a relevant and on topic debate. So many of these creationism/evolution debates wander all over the place and I am extremely pleased we did what we set out to do.

In your opening statement in round three you set out the argument against evolution as not been a rational point of view in the following manner.
1) Evolutionists believe that all life evolved through natural selection.
2) However, that belief is a defeater for itself
3) Therefore, you cannot rationally believe evolution by natural selection to be true.
I wish to address only point one in this argument, as if it is falsifiable then all the other parts naturally follow to be falsifiable.

You said that evolutionist believe that all all life evolved through natural selection. This is false, as evolution is not a belief it is a scientific fact. It should be noted that a scientific theory can be classified as fact when the theory has been tested multiple times and has been shown to be accurate.(1) As such the scientific method of hypothesis, prediction, and testing has been applied to evolutionary theory multiple times and it has been found to be correct. (2) With respect to transitional fossils, the scientific method predicted fossils with different features between two fossils (as shown with the Gray whale fossils and human fossils in my second round). As such the scientific method has been applied to the transitional fossil hypothesis, and it has been shown to be a fact. It should be noted that there is also other evidence for evolution besides transitional fossils like DNA evidence as I pointed out in round 2.(3,4)

I believe the above argument shows that evolution is not a belief or a theory as defined in the English language, but a scientific theory or fact.(5)

Moving on to the Occam's Razor argument against evolution. You said that "Occam's Razor is the logical law that states that the "simplest answer is most often correct"." Fine, I accept that but let me explain why evolution is the simple answer. The other option besides evolution is creationism which requires the existence of a creator. There is absolutely no scientific evidence form the existence of a creator. In contrast there is scientific evidence for evolution. So the simple answer is the answer that has evidence to show it is true, this means the simple answer is evolution.

Then in your last argument, you pointed out that evolution cannot account for three points. Let me address these points.
Origin of life?
This is not a question that evolution aims to answer and as such is irrelevant in this debate.(6)
Origin of Gender?
This implies male and female yet ignores multiple issues such as: asexual reproduction (which is a better means of reproduction), changing genders in fish, hermaphrodites, homosexuality.(7,8,9) I want to point out to my opponent here that the evolution of genders from hermaphrodites has been observed.(9) Also, asexual reproduction is more reliable, and as such gender evolution is in effect an "error". This "error" is what would be expected from random chance in evolution, whereas it would not be expected in creationism.
Origin of consciousness?
Again this is not a question that evolution aims to answer and as such is irrelevant in this debate.(6)

This means, of you three major contentions against evolution two are irrelevant to the evolution debate and the third has been answered.

Lastly, in your conclusion, you have said "The time-scale required for evolution to occur is far beyond the time the earth has even existed." However, you have presented no evidence for this. This statement then means nothing, as without evidence to support it, it is a baseless claim.

In closing I would like to make the following statement. In the opening of his round three rebuttals my opponent stated "I am not going to deny the evidence that Pro presented for evolution", he then said " I will deny the reasoning used". However, I have shown all this reasoning is flawed so in effect my opponent agrees with evolution and the evidence presented fro evolution.

Once again thanks to my opponent for a great debate. I hand the debate back to my opponent and the readers to decide.

(1) http://www.livescience.com...
(2) http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...
(3) http://www.ncsu.edu...
(4) http://humanorigins.si.edu...
(5) http://www.nebscience.org...
(6) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
(7) http://news.stanford.edu...
(8) http://www.sciencedaily.com...
(9) http://www.nature.com...
Nzrsaa

Con

Hi Pro

Pro's Contention
My opponent's objection is that the collapse of the wave-function "does not mean the wave part of the duality disappears it still has to be present otherwise all our molecules loose intrinsic properties."
And I absolutely agree with this. However, I do not think that it has much relevance to my argument. Rather, the general point that I was trying to get across is that our - and indeed the universe's wave function has collapsed [1],[2]. Because otherwise, everything would exist as mere potentiality. However, nothing can exist like that. But, we exist consciously. So, our wave-functions have collapsed. And my argument seeks to find an answer as to just why our - and indeed the universe's wave-functions have collapsed. And I draw the conclusion from the experiment, and how observation collapses the wave function. [3] If our and the universe's wave function has collapsed, that means that we have to be observed. But, that goes into a regress of observers, so there then has to be an observer that exists outside of the universe, observing all of us, making us exist as more than just mere potentiality.

Maybe my terminology was too simple in my original argument, causing confusion. In hindsight, maybe I should have swapped my first 2 premises for:
1) Wave functions only collapse when they are observed
2) Our wave functions have collapsed

That would have been more accurate.
However, I still think that my original premises are correct - molecules still only exist in any certain form when they are observed.

Pro's 2nd Contention
Pro states: "if the quantum world is part of everything then we can only know one part of the system by observation. That means that we can never know all the parts of a system at one time which is what would be expected of an Omniscient god"
Absolutely. But again, I don't think that this has any relevance. Sure, we can't know more than one part of the quantum system. But an omniscient God would - that is the whole point of being 'omniscient'. That is the point of my argument; there has to be some form of observer beyond the universe, observing everything.

Evolution
Pro also talks about my evolution rebuttals, and I will go through them quickly.
First argument
Pro's objection is that evolution is a "scientific theory can be classified as fact when the theory has been tested multiple times and has been shown to be accurate"
However, this seems to have misunderstood the argument. The argument is, that because our cognitive faculties evolved because of survival - not truth - we cannot trust the content beliefs; also meant for survival and not truth therefore. The assumption here is that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and that whatever we 'test' is true. But even these tests are based on our cognitive faculties, which are not based on truth!

Second argument
This is obviously a matter of opinion. But I think that it is obvious that creationism is the most simple answer out of the two. As I have already explained, there is probably an equal amount of evidence for the two hypothesis - that is the whole point of the debate! I have provided evidence; pro has provided evidence. Pro cannot be be begging the question in assuming that there is more evidence for evolution; it needs to be critically assessed, and I hope I have done that in this debate.

Third argument
I think that I should clarify here. I am not saying that on an evolutionary worldview, these things are impossible, answerable or incoherent. Rather, I am saying that evolution is so unlikely to produce these traits that we now have merely through genetic mutation and natural selection, that it cannot be rationally accepted.
Nevertheless, on the origin of genders, I think that I should point out that asexual reproduction is by no means a 'better means of reproduction'. Because, sexual reproduction encourages genetic variety among species [4], which means that offspring are more likely to adapt to their environment and survive.

Conclusion
First off, thank you Pro for an enjoyable and interesting debate. That being said. We have both given evidences for Creationism and Evolution. However, I think that I have sucessfully countered Pro's claims; of which, have not been successfully proved to be wrong. So the motion stands - Creationsm is more rational to believe than evolution.

Sources:
[1] http://deoxy.org...
[2] http://www.nature.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Nzrsaa Your quantum argument could go both ways. You say because the wave function of the universe has collapsed God must exist to collapse it. However the electrons in the double slit experiment had a wave function so God can't exist because God is necessarily omnipotent which would make it so that the electron in the experiment didn't have a wave function.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Nzrssa I do know about the double slit experiment and an electron cn be an observer be an observer and have a wavefunction because an electron can't observe itself. Also the double slit experiment doesn't imply a requirement of consciousness to collapse wavefunction since the electrons wavefunction collapsed once it reached the detector; not when the scientists analyzed the data.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
earlier con said that Occams Razor says "the simplest answer is most likely to be correct" but Occams razor more accurately says "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct;"and creationism certainly does contain a lot of assumptions
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Unlike my most recent evolution debate, it seems that this debate is going very well!
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
Hmmmmm, okay. However, I still think you can briefly touch on that in your next argument. You don't need to get into the technicalities of it. Just talk about the basic family tree of all organisms on Earth and everything like that.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@ AbhijeetWatts : I did not want to bring it in as I think when someone sees evidence it is more convincing. I even said DNA evidence is the best I just did not want to discuss it as DNA requires micro techniques to understand properly and it can cause confusion.
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
Pro, I don't get why you do not bring in DNA evidence. It can be explained very simply as how I have explained it on this comment thread. The DNA evidence is obviously the thing which brings down a creationist's argument.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
Theta pinch,
You do know the experiment, right? They fired one electron without observing; and it went through both slits - it was a wave function of potentiality, but when they observed the experiment, the wave function collapsed and only went through one slit.
The experiment has been repeated with bigger molecules - including atoms and viruses.
There is no way an electron is an observer, otherwise the experiment would never have got off the ground. The electrons would always go through one slit if the electron itself is an observer.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
For the record, it's been shown that even an electron counts as an observer.
Posted by AbhijeetWatts 3 years ago
AbhijeetWatts
As for my third argument, assuming that we mixed fossilized evidence along with anatomical evidence, we find that all of the fossils of older ancestor creatures which we have found have structures which are mightily similar to that of current animals and humans. They have body structures and bone strength which is similar to ours and all other creatures. Those fossils were, once, a product of evolution themselves, having been evolved from an ancestor dating back to the time when the first multicellular organism appeared on this Earth. But anyways, since our anatomy and the anatomy of all other living creatures is similar to that of the fossilized animals from the past, we can conclusively tell that evolution and natural selection are, in fact, the tools used to build us in order to equip us with the necessary features to survive in the environment.

Now, it is very fallacious to assume that a divine power just poofed us into existence. It does not solve the problem at all. It, in fact, makes it more complicated, as questions about the deity's own existence can be raised and even if you argue that he always existed and was eternal, you are simply giving a cop-out argument. Something which exists must have been created, according to your logic. And since God exists and has a higher amount of intelligence than us humans, he must also demand a creator or a process which brought about his existence.

We have evolved due to Darwinian Natural Selection and it is time that we accepted it as a fact. It is also fallacious to say that we evolved from monkeys. Of course we didn't. When biologists talk about us evolving from monkeys, they're talking about the common ancestor which we share with monkeys. The common ancestor would have been monkey-like and not really a homo sapien of sorts. Therefore, we would call it a monkey if we were to ever see it in the present day. It wouldn't be that different from a monkey, really.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
iamanatheistandthisiswhyNzrsaaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that it is more rational to accept evolution.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
iamanatheistandthisiswhyNzrsaaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a theistic Evolutionist so I can't decide on who I do and don't agree with. Conduct and S&G were excellent for both Pro and Con throughout the debate. Arguments go to Pro because....ummm....I was convinced by them... that Creationism is far less supported than Evolution and therefore Evolution is more rational.