The Instigator
CosmoJarvis
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,020 times Debate No: 99055
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (0)

 

CosmoJarvis

Pro

This debate is a discussion arguing whether the theory of Evolution or Creationism is the cause of our origins.

I, pro, will be arguing that humans were created through evolution, while con argues for creationism.

Rounds:
R1) Acceptance

R2) Main Argument
R3) Rebuttals (no new arguments)
R4) Response to Rebuttals (no new arguments)

Rules:
1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.

2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Please be very clear and specify on what you're discussing. Explain a point in detail so that commentators and voters can understand what you're trying to say.
4) Using comments to expand on your argument is not allowed.
sengejuri

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Outline:
I. Introduction

II. Addressing "Intelligent Design"
III. Evidence from Human Bodies
IV. Evidence from Fossils and Bacteria
V. Sources

I. Introduction

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift

Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution (S1).

The Theory of Evolution is a theory created by Charles Darwin, a famed biologist. The Theory of Evolution states that all life evolved from single-celled organisms that developed mutations, gradually over immensely large periods of time, that changed their genetic makeup. These mutations typically developed from a change in homeostasis. Though these changes were not seen in the organism itself, these mutations could pass onto their offspring, though because mutations were recessive genetic traits, they were not apparent in many offspring, and then on.

Creationism, on the other hand, states that all life was created by God, and that humans were in fact not developed through evolutions, but "Intelligent design."

II. Addressing "Intelligent Design"

Intelligent Design is the belief that organisms were created by a divine source such as God, and not through natural selection. According to IntelligentDesign.org, the primary evidence of intelligent design is a "four-step process" of merely observing our environment and deeming if something "begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce Complex and Specified Information," or "CSI." To put it in simpler terms, according to the website, the main evidence proving the belief in Intelligent Design is a belief that a thing is complexly made, therefore it has to be made by an omniscient, divine being.

The Church of Christianity believes in Intelligent Design because of the belief that we humans are God's "greatest creations," explaining why we are physically and mentally superior to most animals. However, that would lead people, including myself, with questions such as: if we were made by God, why did he make us have an appendix, a useless organ that can kill us, or why did God make us have Wisdom Teeth, a set of teeth which does nothing but incite needless pain and realign our teeth in an undesired manner? As I will explain in the following point, many of these "useless body parts" are an indirect result of evolution.

III. Evidence From Human Bodies

As I have discussed briefly in my previous point, we humans possess many useless body parts. These useless body parts are also known as "vestigial body parts." Vestigial means "forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable." This point will be a bulleted list of vestigial organs, what they are, and what purpose they serve:
  • Vomeronasal Organ: The Vomeronasal organ is a non-functioning specialized sensory system on our nose. It is an olfactory system used by amphibians, reptiles, and mammals to detect chemicals by smell.
  • Erector Pili: The Erector Pili are small muscles on our hair follicles that make them stand up. We refer to these as "goosebumps." They were previously used by animals as a reaction to fear or danger. They'd raise their hair follicles to seem larger to incite fear into enemies (S3).
  • Appendix: The Appendix, though currently nothing more than a problem in modern times for humans, previously served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plants than animal protein. Currently, annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy.
  • Wisdom Teeth: Wisdom teeth, though deemed useless in modern times, were used originally when humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive. These extra set of molars helped in breaking down the starchy plants. Currently, only 5% of the population has a healthy set of these third molars, proving how useless molars are in this day and time (S4).

IV: Evidence from Fossils and Genetic Studies

Fossils and bacteria also provide evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. The evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Fossils of extinct species confirm that species are not fixed, but can evolve into other species over great periods of time.

All genes and DNA consist of amino acids and proteins. They're universal codes of our physical make-up, from our gender to our eye colors. Different species have specific numbers of chromosomes in each strand of DNA (excluding embryos). For example, we humans have 46 chromosomes for every DNA strand. Through analysis, such as electrolysis, we can observe the genetic make-up of different species' DNA, and make comparisons based on their similarities in DNA and the number of chromosomes they have. Humans and chimpanzees, though hard to believe, share approximately 96% of our genetic makeup (S5). Additionally, not coincidentally, animals such as regular cattle we find in farms and buffalos both have similar DNA make-ups, possessing a total of 60 chromosomes. Their physical differences, such as buffalos having more fur while domestic cattle don't have as much, can be attributed to the regions they're located in and the different ways both animals have to keep homeostasis. Domestic cattle typically don't have a need to grow fur. However, buffalo, to conserve their body temperature for the harsh winters they may face (S6).

V. Sources

S1) Dictionary.com

S2) http://www.intelligentdesign.org...
S3) http://www.medicaldaily.com...
S4) http://www.bloggingwv.com...
S5) http://homepage.usask.ca...
S6) https://prezi.com...

sengejuri

Con

In accordance with the rules, I will present my main arguments and save rebuttals for the next round.

As stated, this debate is about the cause of the origins of life. I accept Pro's definition of evolution as a gene pool change caused by mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. As such, let's proceed.

Pro is not fully correct in saying evolution states all life came from a single-cell organism. It's circular to say that all life came from a single-cell, because that single cell is also alive. So all you have said is "all life comes from life." But we are asking where life itself came from, so we must go deeper than that. Before life arose there was only non-life, so evolution must ultimately account for how life came from non-life.

I do not dispute that evolution occurs the way Pro describes it - genetic mutations happen, organisms change, birds grow shorter beaks, dogs grow longer hair, etc... We know this. We observe this. But this merely proves that evolution is an agent of change, not an agent of creation. Contrary to common opinion, we cannot scientifically prove that evolution created life. We cannot re-observe the formation of the earth. We cannot replicate the early universe in a lab and see if life forms. Every attempt to do so has failed. At the same time, it is equally impossible to prove that a divine creative force exists. Neither possibility is scientific, neither possibility is provable. We are therefore left with an inference to the best explanation. I propose that creation is the best explanation for life's origins.

== Argument ==

1. Something cannot come from nothing - Evolution ultimately relies on something coming from nothing. The theory goes like this: Over millions of years, bacteria eventually evolved into Beethoven. The bacteria came from millions of years of "primordial soup" - elements and atmosphere swirling around through meteorological and geological processes that came to form proteins that somehow eventually came alive. Before that was stellar evolution - planets and galaxies forming together over billions of years after the Big Bang. And before the Big Bang was.... nothing. For, by definition, nothing natural could exist before the Big Bang if the Big Bang created everything in nature. So, ultimately, evolution must account for how something came from nothing, which is a logical absurdity. Creation, on the other hand, posits that before the Big Bang there was a supernatural (above nature) force, which (even if you don't believe in it) is at least completely plausible and can explain what caused the Big Bang. So in this category, creation has more explanatory power than evolution.

2. Irreducible Complexity - evolution must account for irreducible complexity, which it cannot. Evolution posits that life changes over gradual changes due to small and random DNA mutations. However, animals have body parts that could not possibly have evolved slowly over time. They are "irreducibly complex" - meaning they could only pop into existence all at once totally formed, because small gradual changes would have killed the animal and stopped Natural Selection. For example, the Bombardier Beetle has a complex defense system that mixes two chemicals inside its body in two separate chambers that react to form a liquid that heats to 212 degrees, which it then sprays in the face of its attacker. This system cannot evolve gradually, it must exist all at once or else it is harmful. Without the chemicals, the beetle is defenseless and gets eaten. Without the chambers, the chemical reaction melts the beetle. Either way, the gradual process does not produce a beneficial mutation and the beetle is not Naturally Selected. But somehow, these beetles do have such a system. If the gradual, accidental process of evolution cannot account for such a defense system, the only other alternative is being created all at once. This is better explained through creation.

3. Probability - For evolution to be true, the incredibly precise and complex universe we observe was created by accident. What is the probability of this happening? Incredibly small - in fact, impossibly small. This is a viable option, but it's so astoundingly improbable that it cannot offer the best explanation. Roger Penrose of Oxford University calculated that the probability of the universe's low entropy condition developing by chance alone is 1:10^10(123). That's a 1 followed by more zeroes than there are atoms in the universe. This is an unbelievably inconceivable number - a probability so small that it flirts with the definition of impossible. I look forward to Pro explaining why we should accept such improbability as the "best" solution to how life formed.

Design - Flipping Penrose's ratio around, there is therefore a 10^10(123) to 1 probability that the universe did NOT arise by chance, i.e., design is vastly more probable. But beyond probability, there are logical reasons to accept design as the best explanation for life.

Sorry to cut it short, I didn't have much time to write this weekend, so I'll leave it there for now.
Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Pro

"So all you have said is 'all life comes from life.' But we are asking where life itself came from..."
I will deny that the Theory of Evolution assumes that life came from a single cell that just-so-happened to have appeared from nothing. However, the same argument can be made for God and all life. In Genesis, the First Story of Creation, "God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." The Bible assumes that God managed to make
organic life out of inorganic material, and gave man the "breath of life." We must assume that the clay took the complex form of man rather than simply a mound of clay and dirt; we must assume that the clay took the form of a human body, forming blood vessels and arteries, organs, skin, hair, eyes, limbs, fingers, neurons, etc.

However, I will not end my argument with an unanswered question. I have been looking into this recently and discovered "Prebiotic molecules," the supposed building blocks which created all of life.

Prebiotic molecules are the chemical and environmental precursors of organic life. It is believed that prebiotic molecules were necessary for the creation and evolution of life, being the raw materials from which living cells were formed, brought by meteorites and comet-like objects (S1). Molecules containing the four elements, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, can synthesize amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and other key compounds for life. According to many sources and professional scientific researchers, space is teeming with molecules such as Formamide (NH2CHO) with these elements (S2). For example. in Leiden University, the Astrophysics Laboratory found that interstellar dust in space contains the bulk of organic material in the universe. The deposit of prebiotic dust molecules likely occurred as many as five times in the first 500-700 million years on primitive Earth (S3).

To summarize my point on prebiotic molecules, many scientists and researchers can assume that, because of the massive amounts of compounds which contain the elements essential for creating life, and assuming that there have been collisions many between Meteorites and Earth, I can conclude that these prebiotic molecules found on the meteorites were deposited on Earth, and formed the very first living cells.

¨Evolution must account for irreducible complexity, which it cannot. Evolution posits that life changes over gradual changes due to small and random DNA mutations. However, animals have body parts that could not possibly have evolved slowly over time. They are 'irreducibly complex' - meaning they could only pop into existence all at once totally formed, because small gradual changes would have killed the animal and stopped Natural Selection.¨
You claim that evolution cannot account for great changes in animals because they're "irreducibly complex." However, you fail to provide any claims about why things such as God and creationism are less irreducibly complex. God is supposedly a being who can create anything, whether it's matter or energy, by saying things like "Let there be light!" Complex things such as light and the Earth were created with the simple phrase of "Let there..." and thus it appears. We don't question it. We just assume it happened, just as you assume that evolution is impossible because it is "too complex."


Assuming that, because of research done through carbon dating and geology, however, we can assume that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, even though the Bible claims that it is only around six thousand years even though trees such as the Old Tjikko tree surpass nine thousand years (S4). If the Eath is around 4.5 billion years old, then certainly evolution can dramatically change certain creatures such as apes to man.

"The incredibly precise and complex universe we observe was created by accident."
I don't want to explain this in a way that is hard to understand but, people simply assume that the formation of the world was "no mere accident" because we have no other precedent to use to judge how "perfect" this world is. We can assume that we regard this world as "no mere accident" also because we're alive, and we assume that the only reason we are alive is because of how the world was made.

I personally strongly believe that the Universe was created by the Big Bang, and all life was created through prebiotic molecules. As Steven Hawking argues, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Sources:
S1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...;

S2) http://www.agenciasinc.es...;
S3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
S4) http://mentalfloss.com...
S5) https://www.theguardian.com...;
sengejuri

Con

== Rebuttals ==

"Addressing Intelligent Design" - Pro says that the presence of useless or harmful organs in our bodies contradicts the idea of an intelligent designer. But Pro goes on to demonstrate that these "vestigial body parts" were once extremely useful. Vomeronasal organs detected chemicals. The appendix was used to digest cellulose. Wisdom teeth were used to chew plants. So, Pro has in fact admitted that these body parts WERE useful and helpful to our ancestors, which means they are not just random useless mistakes and therefore do not contradict the idea of a designer.

"Fossils and DNA" - Pro says that fossils show species changing over time. No doubt this is true. But again, notice how this is not really the issue. We obviously know that animals change and that buffalo have more fur than cows. But that just explains how life changes, not how life was created. Life changing into other life is much different than life springing out of non-living chemicals.

When discussing DNA, Pro uses a key word - "code." DNA is indeed a code for life. The fact that DNA is code is an insurmountable hurdle for evolution. Natural, random processes can NEVER produce a code. Code production always requires intelligence. First, let's look at what a code is:

An almost universally accepted definition of a code is found in Claude Shannon's paper: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. [1] In it, we find that a code has 5 components: 1) An information source that produces a message. 2) A transmitter that produces a signal to move the info. 3) A channel, or medium, along which the signal can pass. 4) A receiver that reconstructs the transmitter's original signal. 5) A destination - whom or what the message is intended for.

DNA performs each of these 5 functions exactly. Therefore, DNA is a code. The problem for evolution comes in criteria #1 - information. DNA certainly has information that it transmits, but evolution cannot account for where that information came from. Information cannot be created naturally. Information always requires intelligence. All the evidence that science can give us says that information is only created by intelligence. As MIT professor Norbert Wiener famously wrote, "information is information, neither matter nor energy." [2] Therefore, it is appropriate to infer that since DNA contains information, it too required intelligence.

This carries into Pro's point about prebiotic molecules. No doubt many molecules can form under natural conditions, even organic ones. But this does not get you to code, this does not get you to DNA. Pro casually says with a hand wave: "I can conclude that these prebiotic molecules found on the meteorites were deposited on Earth, and formed the very first living cells." But that is a HUGE jump! There is exactly zero scientific evidence to explain how you get from molecules on meteorites to living cells. In order to do that, you need DNA and/or RNA to form first, and for that to work you need to get those chemicals to communicate code for building proteins with each other. Scientists have no idea how this could have happened - as an aptly named article in Scientific American admits - "Pssst! Don't Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don't Have a Clue How Life Began" [3].

Simply having the raw materials (molecules) present is not enough to get you code. That would be like dumping an ink jar onto some paper and expecting Romeo and Juliet to form. Mashing raw materials together (ink on paper) does not get you code. Consciously arranging those raw materials into a pattern that follows a pre-determined rule and is understood by the receiver gets you code. Romeo and Juliet is code - an agent (Shakespeare) arranged raw materials (ink) into a pattern (letters) that follows a rule (the English language) that is understood by receivers (audience). This cannot happen naturally - it all starts with an intelligent being - Shakespeare. Thus, the idea of intelligent design is far more in agreement with what we observe about life than naturalistic evolution is.

Pro merely has to produce one, single example of a naturally occurring code. If they can do this, I will forfeit the debate immediately. If not, we must admit that intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution.

"Irreducible complexity" - Pro did not understand the point here. I'm not saying that evolution cannot make complex things, I'm saying that the process of gradual and random change over time (evolution) cannot explain the existence of organic systems that must either form all at once or not at all. The multi-chemical, multi-chambered Bombardier Beetle defense system could not have gradually evolved a little at a time. Any transitory-forms of the defense system either wouldn't work (and therefore would not be naturally selected) or would kill the beetle. Therefore, the fact that this complex defense system DOES exist means evolution must have accidentally mutated it all at once in its complete form, which violates the very definition of evolution and seems incredibly hard to believe.

"Probability" - I don't really understand Pro's objection here. Pro confirms they believe the universe was created by the Big Bang, but did not offer an explanation for how evolution explains something coming from nothing. Pro produced an obscure Steven Hawking quote which says gravity caused the universe to come from nothing - but that is a self contradiction. If the universe came from the law of gravity, then it didn't come from "nothing," it came from gravity. This doesn't answer the question, it merely pushes it back - for now we must explain where gravity came from. I challenge Pro to do so.

Pro has dropped several arguments:

Pro did not explain why we should accept a theory with 1:1^10(123) probability of being correct (universe formed by chance) over a theory with a 1^10(123):1 probability (universe did not form by chance).

Pro has not offered an explanation for how life can come from non-life (simply describing prebiotic molecules does not explain how the non-life to life jump is made).

Pro has not shown how evolution explains the existence of irreducibly complex systems.

Furthermore, Pro continually attacks the Bible and Young Earth Creationism (age of the Earth = <6,000 years). I have made no mention of the Bible or YEC. I am not advocating anything specific to Christianity or any other religion. I'm merely claiming that an Intelligent Designer, in whatever form that may be, offers a better explanation for how life formed than evolution can. Any further attacks on Genesis or YEC are merely straw men, and I won't respond to them.

[1] http://math.harvard.edu...
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 3
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Rebuttals:

1. "Pro says that the presence of useless or harmful organs in our bodies contradicts the idea of an intelligent designer. But Pro goes on to demonstrate that these "vestigial body parts" were once extremely useful. Vomeronasal organs detected chemicals..."

As we can see from Con's statements, Con agrees that vestigial body parts used to be extremely useful for our ancestors. Is it too far to say that maybe our "ancestors," were
sapiens, or other supposed early versions of man? However, he continues by saying that vomeronasal organs detected chemicals. Perhaps it was my wording, or Con did not read my argument thoroughly enough, but I clarified that the vomeronasal organs are currently non-functioning in humans, but formerly were used by our ancestors to detect pheromones and chemicals. The fact that vomeronasal organs became non-functioning, or obsolete, demonstrates that, if we were created by Intelligent Design, what purpose would there be of possessing vomeronasal organs if they don't function?

2. "Pro says that fossils show species changing over time. No doubt this is true."

This statement alone shows that species can develop and change, and likely evolve.


3. "The fact that DNA is code is an insurmountable hurdle for evolution."

Again, Con uses the argument that "Life is too complex to be created by chance." Regardless, I shall address Con's statement. Con states that DNA code is too complex for evolution to be created.


I believe Con suggests that man's genetic code is very different from other species. Con assumes that there was a dynamic shift from an ape to man. However, as I have clarified in my previous arguments, evolution is not a fast process. It takes millions, of years to cultivate different species such as man. It's a long process were small mutations are made in DNA.

4. "This carries into Pro's point about prebiotic molecules. No doubt many molecules can form under natural conditions, even organic ones. But this does not get you to code, this does not get you to DNA. Pro casually says with a hand wave: "I can conclude that these prebiotic molecules found on the meteorites were deposited on Earth, and formed the very first living cells." But that is a HUGE jump! There is exactly zero scientific evidence"

Firstly, let me apologize. It was ridiculous to not clarify on this. To support the theory that prebiotic molecules may be the sources of organic life on Earth, I would like to introduce the Miller-Urey Experiment and a brief description of abiotic synthesis.


Abiotic Synthesis: making compounds using non-living molecules (S1)

The Miller-Urey Experiment was an experiment conducted by biochemists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The experiment demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere. In the website, Windows to the Universe, the experiment is described as "an apparatus which held a mix of
gasses similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates," (S2).

The Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated that substances, such as prebiotic molecules, had the potential to create organic life, given the conditions on Earth's early atmosphere, as demonstrated by amino acids (organic molecules) that were created as a result of reactions between abiotic, or nonliving, molecules.

s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Image result for miller urey experiment" />

Questions for Con:


Con's main argument relies on rebutting my claims. However, Con has not even started to make arguments and points of his own that prove that Intelligent Design has more "scientific proof" behind it. Con's "evidence is instead a barrage of rebuttals and questions on evolution with a lack of reasoning other than simply saying that evolution is "too complex" to exist, and saying that because modern science may not currently answer all the questions we have to our existence, that means that evolution is automatically a terrible theory. With that logic, because Democritus, the Greek scientist to come up with the theory atoms, didn't have enough evidence or answers to explain the theory of atoms, his theory is deemed to be false.


Also, Con has asked "how can something come out of nothing," likely forgetting that God presumably came from "nothing," and so did man (Adam and Eve). What reason is there for an unquestionably complex being like God to be created? What possibility is there of such an omnificent being existing?

Sources:
S1) http://study.com...

S2) http://www.windows2universe.org...
sengejuri

Con

== Response to Rebuttals ==

I do agree that vestigial organs were useful to our ancestors. I did not misread your argument. Pro seems to be missing the point that if these organs were once useful to our ancestors (thus, being necessary for life to advance), then an intelligent designer would be completely justified in designing them. The fact that they are currently useless is irrelevant. The purpose of the vemeronasal organs was to help our ancestors survive and reproduce so that we could be here today living in enough comfort to not need those organs anymore.

"This statement alone shows that species can develop and change, and likely evolve." - Yes, I know, I've already admitted that. But once again, that's not at all what this debate is about. We are not debating how life changes. We're debating how life BEGAN. I have repeatedly challenged Pro to demonstrate how evolution accounts for this beginning - how life springs from non-life. I still have not seen an answer. Pro has given us nothing to demonstrate why evolution is a good explanation for how non-life transformed into life.

In regard to the discussion on code, Pro says: "Again, Con uses the argument that 'Life is too complex to be created by chance.'" This is not what I'm saying at all. The complexity of life has nothing to do with it. My entire point here is that DNA is a code, and codes never form naturally or randomly. Every code we currently know of was generated by intelligence. Again, think dumping ink on paper vs. Shakespeare writing Romeo and Juliet. The argument goes like this:

All codes come from intelligence. DNA is a code. Therefore, DNA comes from intelligence.

To defeat this, all Pro had to do was show that not all codes come from intelligence. I challenged Pro to do so in Round 3, and tellingly they did not respond to the challenge.

Since Pro admits that DNA is code, and since Pro could not show that codes can form through a random natural process, we must conclude that intelligence is the best explanation for the existence of DNA and therefore life itself.

The Miller-Urey experiment: Ah yes, the classic M-U experiment. Fascinating, no doubt. But it only shows how amino acids can form in a carefully controlled laboratory, not the early Earth. In fact, most scientists no longer accept its findings. Scientists now believe the early Earth atmosphere was different than the one simulated by Miller and Urey, and when they repeated the experiment with a more accurate early atmosphere, the experiment failed: "Researchers who have repeated the Miller-Urey experiment under the new atmospheric assumptions, including Miller, have shown that this new mixture does not produce amino acids." [1]. Regardless, amino acids still aren't life. Pro still cannot demonstrate how life comes from non-life or how amino acids naturally turn into code (DNA).

"Question for Con" - Pro claims that I have merely made a "barrage of rebuttals," and that I have not made arguments of my own. I would like to direct Pro to Round 2, where I very clearly made 3 arguments:

1) Something cannot come from nothing, which means design is a better explanation than evolution.
2) The existence of irreducibly complex biological systems is better explained by design than a gradual process of small mutations.
3) The probability of a designed universe is unfathomably greater than the probability of an accidental one.

In each of these arguments, I showed why design is a stronger explanation for life than evolution. Pro has since dropped #1, failed to understand #2, and never responded to #3.

In reference to #1, Pro does say that God would have presumably come from nothing too. This is the topic for a whole separate debate, but in sum, God is eternal and requires no creation. The very definition of God is an omniscient, eternal, supernatural (lit. "above nature") being. Therefore, God is outside of all things natural - including time - which means God could not be created because creation is a temporal act. By definition, God has always existed and requires no creation event. But, like I said, this is a whole separate topic....

As I explained in Round 2, there is no "scientific proof" for either evolution or creation. We can therefore only find an inference to the best explanation. I never said that evolution is too complex to exist. Rather, I said that evolution cannot currently explain how codes form naturally and how life springs from non-life. Intelligent design can. Therefore, I.D. is the better explanation.

I encourage all voters to look past their own personal opinions on evolution and strictly weigh the strength of arguments and rebuttals presented within this debate.

Thank you Pro for a fun debate.

[1] https://phys.org...
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I would be intrigued if we could engage in a debate regarding this topic.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Also, I do agree with you there with the belief that, because Evolution is a theory, it isn't 100% factually correct. In fact, many scientists may agree with you there as well. Evolution is a theory (though we should not discredit it for being one without looking at the evidence behind it) and there are some parts of it that are unknown and are not yet observable by modern science. However, as more scientists experiment and discover more about life and evolution, hopefully, scientists may find more to support of modify evolutionist beliefs so that we gain a better understanding of how life began.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
You know what, dude? I respect your opinion. I get it, people think that, because it's a "theory," it's not a reliable idea. But we have to take into account that things like gravity are a theory, even though both gravity and evolution (both microevolution and fossil evidence) are both observable in some respects. Even though my ideas may not coincide with yours, I completely respect them and your religious beliefs. As L. Ron Hubbard did unto the Mormons, turn a cheek for a cheek. :)
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
CosmoJarvis
"So evolution must be "100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary"
That's correct.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
So evolution must be "100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary," but we can accept God with NO evidence. ;)
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
If you want me to answer that, maybe we should debate, eh?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Evolution is false
1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by sengejuri 1 year ago
sengejuri
You too
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Great debate, Sengejuri.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I'm flattered. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.