The Instigator
afrowe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheApologist
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Evolution vs Creationism

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...
TheApologist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,770 times Debate No: 21874
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

afrowe

Pro

I have always viewed Creationism as an insult to our intelligence. Evolution is no longer just a theory that people can be opinionated about, it is a scientific fact. Besides, Creationism contradicts itself all the time in the Bible, and yet people still follow it. Did you know that 40% of Americans believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old? The fact that it's such a large number (Even though not the majority) is disgusting. People need to sit down and pick up a book aside from the Bible, and need to think a little.

I have one major contradiction in the Bible that I think may make them think differently. According to Creationism, Adam and Eve had Cane and Able. Cane and Able, both being men, could not repopulate. Some people start making things up on the spot, such as "Well... they might not have been the only ones on the planet you know." If this was true, why did the Bible never mention it? The only way they could repopulate is by incest with their mother. Then, if they had a girl with their mother, they would have some sort of mental deficiency. Then they could continue to perform incest on each other, all being related, leading to mental handicaps. So technically, according to this, we are all literally brother and sister, so everyone would be having handicapped children. I rest my case.
TheApologist

Con

I will assume that the first round is for acceptance since you have so far presented no real arguments against creation.

Concerning how many people believe Creationism is true is no argument either way, any more than how many people believed evolution in Darwin's day was.

I will refute the claim that my opponent made concerning how Cain and Able had children.
My opponent has not carefully read the text. He should look at Genesis 5:4:
"After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters."
Obviously Cain married one of his sisters (I can give you more explanation on how this was reasonable if you want).
The text (Genesis chp. 4) only mentions the birth of Cain and Able because they were the only ones who played a part in that narrative.

So this "contradiction" is not so unexplainable as my opponent would like to believe

I will await your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
afrowe

Pro

PART 2 - NO LONGER A THEORY

Creationists always say, "Oh well, you can say evolution is a matter of opinion, it's still a theory." Evolution is no longer a theory, but a scientific fact. If you look at the DNA of Chimpanzees to our DNA, they're pretty similar. Besides, I don't see how a magical man living in the sky and making everything is more logical than something that happens 100% of the time. I'm sure you'll argue on how the organisms to kick off evolution got here. Well, how did God get here? Besides, I have a question for you. How did we get different races if we just kept repopulating? Adapting to your climate and surroundings pertains to Evolution. Besides, it's a waste of my time to try to explain to you that Evolution is a fact, it occurs 100% of the time, and there's no getting through to someone who believes in a thousand year old book than in data and observations.

The point of this argument is saying that my opponent favors Creationism over Evolution. This is to state how ridiculous it is to believe in a thousand year old book rather than data.
TheApologist

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick reply,

Your “arguments” are very convoluted and will be difficult to refute adequately. I would appreciate if you laid them out more methodically in the future.


Creationists always say, "Oh well, you can say evolution is a matter of opinion, it's still a theory." Evolution is no longer a theory, but a scientific fact.
Okay so lets look at some evidence….
If you look at the DNA of Chimpanzees to our DNA, they're pretty similar.
This is your ONE piece of evidence to support MACRO-evolution as a scientific law? I will refute this, but you should give more evidence.

You state from an unidentified source that the DNA of chimps and humans are pretty similar. However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.

In fact chimps are 95% similar humans (Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635). However it should be remembered that this is the difference between 150,000,000 DNA base pairs! There is tons of differences.
(sorry this refutation is kindof short, but I can give you a more indepth explaination in our next debate... right now I am a little short on time)
Besides, I don't see how a magical man living in the sky and making everything is more logical than something that happens 100% of the time.
This is not an argument for evolution:
Your description “magical man” is hardly tenable. God is neither magical, nor a man.
Concerning this “something” are you discussing MICRO evolution or MACRO evolution.
I'm sure you'll argue on how the organisms to kick off evolution got here. Well, how did God get here?

I could make that argument… Instead I’m trying to refute your claims about my position, which you hardly understand.

Concerning God, He is eternal. That means that He has always been. He created the laws of nature and time. He exists outside of time. God is God, he simply is. You can say that I believe this based on non-reason. I would counter that I believe this based on faith which is based upon very practical and reasonable evidence. (which I would be glad to share with you... if you care)
Besides, I have a question for you. How did we get different races if we just kept repopulating?
Genetics…
After the flood, the different children of Noah spread to different areas. As one group, say with mostly “short” genes interbred to become a short race at the same time other feature became emphasized too creating distinct races.

Of course as people merge, and intermarry more today, these “races” have become much less distinct than they were say two hundred years ago.

Adapting to your climate and surroundings pertains to Evolution. Besides, it's a waste of my time to try to explain to you that Evolution is a fact, it occurs 100% of the time,

Don’t worry,, I’m not as thickheaded as you think, I believe in MICRO-evolution. This is SCIENTIFIC LAW which says that different species can change (e.g. from a wolf to a poodle). This is absolutely Biblical. For example: Genesis 6:20 “Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.” The Hebrew word for kind in english basically means “species”. So this does not mean that wolves can only reproduce wolves. For example a dog is a specific “kind” distinct from, say, a horse.

and there's no getting through to someone who believes in a thousand year old book than in data and observations.

I ask the voters to consider whether this is a statement which follows proper conduct? I can show why the Bible is reliable, but to make this sort of claim without any support is unnecessarily rude.

The point of this argument is saying that my opponent favors Creationism over Evolution. This is to state how ridiculous it is to believe in a thousand year old book rather than data.

So basically you just want to show that I am an Idiot… I joined this debate to give logical and reasonable defense for my faith (and refutation of evolution). I do not appreciate name calling.

My opponent has given hardly any data for the reliability of MACRO-evolution, and no evidence that this “1,000 year old book” (actually it is between 2-4 thousand years old) is unreliable.
Debate Round No. 2
afrowe

Pro

afrowe forfeited this round.
TheApologist

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round all my previous arguments are extended.

My opponent has agreed to debate this subject with me again because his arguments here where convoluted and illogical. In this argument I was the only onto refute my opponent and provide a reasonable explanation for my position. I look forward to a better debate next time. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
By the way, Pro, their names are spelled Cain and Abel.
Posted by afrowe 5 years ago
afrowe
Yeah sure, we can finish, and I'll invite you to a new thread after this one's done.
Posted by TheApologist 5 years ago
TheApologist
Okay, we need to finish this one, but it can be null at least in my book. Once we are done. You can personally invite me to debate in a new thread.

I would suggest that in our next time you narrow the subject. Creation vs. Evolution is so broad it is impossible to cover it adequatly in one debate.

Let me know your thoughts

Thanks,
Posted by afrowe 5 years ago
afrowe
Yes, I would much rather start a new debate since this is not organized on my part.
Posted by TheApologist 5 years ago
TheApologist
You'll finish this debate though right? If you wish I can debate you on creation vs. evolution in a new debate, after this one is done.
Posted by afrowe 5 years ago
afrowe
I've created a new debate, more organized than this one. This was actually my first debate on here, than I began looking at some others, and I figured out how to keep it organized.
Posted by TheApologist 5 years ago
TheApologist
Yeah, you're bringing up way to many subjects for me to refute... I'll do the best I can though.
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
Pro your arguments are all over the place and very topical, they are very weak.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
If we all have mental deficiencies who actually has a deficiency?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
afroweTheApologistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Ironic that Pro considers Creationism an "insult to our intelligence" yet obviously doesn't base his rejection of it on any sort of intellectual argument. Pro forfeited, but also his arguments were weak and revealed that he really doesn't know the Bible, the thing which he is trying to bash.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
afroweTheApologistTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit plus personal attacks. Arguments because Con refuted all of Pro's arguments.