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

Evolution vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/22/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 101248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

CosmoJarvis

Pro

This debate will assess whether evolution or creationism is the more logical explanation for man's existence.

I, pro will be advocating for the theory of evolution, while con will be advocating for creationism.

Both pro and con are responsible for providing a burden of proof.

Rounds:
R1: Acceptance
R2: Main Arguments (NO REBUTTALS)
R3: Rebuttals (NO NEW ARGUMENTS)
R4: Rebuttals (NO NEW ARGUMENTS)
subdeo

Con

I accept, and look forward to this debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Outline:
I. Introduction

II. Addressing "Intelligent Design"
III. Evidence from DNA
IV. Sources

I. Introduction

Evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by processes such 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 [1].

The Theory of Evolution is a theory postulated by Charles Darwin, an English naturalist, geologist, and biologist. The Theory of Evolution states that all life evolved from single-celled organisms that changed and developed through natural selection and a number of mutations over an immensely long period of time. The process of evolution, acccording to this theory, still persists to this day.

Creationism, on the other hand, states that all life was created by a divine being and that humans were created from "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 the process of evolution [2].

Most religions believe that man was designed in the eye of the God(s), claiming that we are "perfect" and "infallible." If intelligent design and creationism were to be true, however, humans would not possess vestigial body parts.

Vestigial Organs are organs and structures that are either unnecessary or do not serve any serious function. Charles Darwin refers to vestigial organs as evidence for evolution [3]. Vestigial organs in humans include but are not limited to the:
  • 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 [4].
  • 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 [5].

III: Evidence from DNA

Our genetic makeups can provide a great deal of evidence towards the Theory of Evolution.

Genetic material and DNA are universal codes of our physical make-up, from our eye color to our gender. All genes and DNA consist of amino acids and proteins. Each species has specific numbers of chromosomes in a cell's nucleus. For example, humans possess 46 chromosomes for every nucleus of a cell. Through Gel Electrophoresis, we can observe the genetic make-up of each organism's Genetic composition, 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 [6]. Additionally, animals such as domestic cattle and buffalos share genetic make-ups, both possessing a total of 60 chromosomes per cell. Their physical differences, such as buffalos having fur while domestic cattle don't, can be attributed to the regions they're located in and the different ways both animals have to keep homeostasis. Domestic cattle don't have a need to grow fur and therefore do not have fur. However, buffalo, to conserve their body temperature for the harsh winters they may face [7].

IV. Sources

[1] Dictionary.com

[2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org......
[3] http://www.livescience.com...;
[4] http://www.medicaldaily.com......
[5] http://www.bloggingwv.com......
[6] http://homepage.usask.ca......
[7] https://prezi.com......

subdeo

Con

Introduction

The theory of Creation has been widely accepted for an extended period of time. Relatively recently (as far as world history is concerned), with the advent of Charles Darwin, a new theory has come around. At first considered pseudoscience [1], it is now know as the theory of Evolution.
First I will mention some of the problems with the Theory of Evolution. Then I will discuss some reasons why Creationism is the only reasonable alternative.

Problems with Evolution

The first problem with evolution is the fact that it fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place. Our universe should not exist. Now, I"ve heard it said that origins had something to do with "quantum fluctuations" [2]. However, I would ask the dutiful apologist where those came from. Everything had to have some beginning from another source. Evolution fails to explain that source.
The second problem is with the theory of creatures evolving into another creature entirely. Not only has this never been demonstrated in the least (laboratory or otherwise), but we have no evidence whatsoever in the fossil record for it. On many occasions a "missing link" has been proudly touted by the evolutionists, only to find it is at best a result of overactive imagination, at worst a fraud. Take Nebraska Man, for instance [3]. Scientists found a single tooth among some ancient tools. Based on this single tooth, the scientists cried missing link. Pictures were draw of a man-ape, based on one tooth! [4]. Later, It was shown that the tooth belonged to a peccary. Overall, we have no missing links available to us, which is in stark contrast to the multitudes we should see.
Here is an excerpt from Peter Kreeft"s website discussing the improbability of evolution. "Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God." [5]

Reasons for Creation

One of the main arguments for Creation is the argument from design. In creation, we see many kinds of specific design, even more than just the fact that anything exists at all. Many parts of creation seem to exist for no particular reason of survival, but enjoyment only. Take natural beauty, for instance. There is no conceivable way that our beautiful world, solar system, galaxy, and universe were made so exquisitely by chance. There is no reason for it to be so, unless a designer made it that way intentionally [6].
Another reason is that the winding up of our galaxy only allows a maximum period of a few hundred million years for its existence. Of course, I believe that the galaxy (and the whole universe) is much younger than this, however, that is the absolute greatest age that it could be, contrary to the supposed 13.6 Billion years (with a B). Why is this? It is because the inner parts of the arms of our galaxy spin faster than the outer parts. As a result of this, over time, the galaxy would "unwind" and become a blob or disc. Not the detailed spiral it actually is. As a result, it must be much younger than 13.6 billion years [8]

Sources:
[1] http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4] https://www.google.com...
[5] http://www.peterkreeft.com...
[6] https://answersingenesis.org...
[7] http://www.universetoday.com...
[8] http://www.icr.org...
Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Pro

My opponent argues that the Theory of Evolution is unrealistic because it "fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place," and because humans have never physically observed evolution. My opponent continues to explain that Creationism is the more realistic alternative because there are things that "exist for no particular reason of survival, but enjoyment only," and because the universe cannot conceivably be 13.6 billion years according to my opponent.

Firstly, I would like to address my opponent's first point against evolution: the belief that it "fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place." My opponent argues that, because creationism explains how the world began and not the Theory of Evolution, creationism is more logical. The Theory of Evolution, by no means, attempts to explain how the world began. Instead, it is an explanation for how animals and humans came to be about. Additionally, while creationism provides an easy, simple answer for how we and the world began, does it have any logical or scientific support? While my opponent has provided a number of sources, eight in fact, my opponent fails to provide any support or evidence for creationism.

My opponent does provide a good point
against
evolution by asking the "apologist evolutionists" and the audience where life would've originated in accordance
to
the Theory of Evolution, and so I shall take some time to address this point:

Prebiotic molecules are molecules composed of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. They are believed to be the chemical and environmental precursors of organic life [1][2]. Prebiotic molecules are found in meteorites [3]. Assuming that the Earth was hit by meteorites millions, even billions, of years ago, we can assume that some prebiotic molecules landed on Earth. As I previously stated, prebiotic molecules contain the four elements, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, capable of synthesizing amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and other key compounds for life.

Prebiotic molecules can create organic molecules such as cells and amino acids through abiotic synthesis. Abiotic synthesis can be demonstrated through the famous Miller-Urey Experiment. The Miller-Urey Experiment was an experiment conducted by biochemists, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The experiment showed 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
gases
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," [4]. 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.

My opponent's second argument against evolution is mere criticism and explaining that evolution is "improbable" because of
author
, philosopher and Christian apologist, suggests that "if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this
point
we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God." However, though Kreeft is a famous and experienced apologist and author, his logic is fallible and unfounded. Here is an example of how Kreeft's arguments are baseless and scientifically wrong: http://www.patheos.com...

My opponent's "reasons for Creation" is the belief that things that "exist for no particular reason of survival" are meant for our "enjoyment," and the age of the universe. I ask my opponent and audience, what do weeds and poison ivy do for us? Do they "look pretty?" Do they assist our survival? Why do hostile creatures like poisonous snakes bite us and try to kill us? For our "enjoyment?" My opponent fails to provide substantial reasoning for his argument. Additionally, my opponent focuses on how the world was created,
failing to address the central topic: how was life created on Earth.

Sources:
[1] http://study.com...;
[2] http://www.agenciasinc.es...;
[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com...;
[4] http://www.windows2universe.org...;
subdeo

Con

The reason I brought up the origins of matter was because without matter, there can be no meteorites, prebiotic molecules, or life at all. This obviously presents a challenge for the theory of evolution. So far, only Creation explains the origin of matter and life, while evolution only explains (or attempts to explain) the origin of life, leaving out the obvious question, "where did that material come from". In addition, if it can be proven that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim, but is nearer the age that young earth creationists estimate, than the theory of evolution and the origin of life will also be debunked. In my last arguments I discussed the age of the earth.

My opponent gives next a detailed hypothesis as to how he thinks life arose on the planet. However, I ask him what would happen if the amino acids were mixed up in a pot, or even proteins. Would this mixture be life? Of course not. After any of us die, we remain chemically the same as when we were alive. The only difference between a cadaver and a human being alive and well is consciousness bound to the body. So even if the earth was as old as evolutionists suppose, allowing for evolution to take place, and even if it did somehow manage to create an amino acid: It would still not be alive.

An amino acid is "complex", this characteristic being largely in the eye of the beholder. However, a protein is terribly more complicated [1]. For those who don"t know among the voters, a protein is essentially hundreds if not thousands of amino acids liked together [2]. Even still more complicated than a protein is an organism itself, and here I come to my argument. Unless all the parts in a given organism were in place at exactly the same time, in the same original organism, the organism would die, and the whole of the races of life on the planet would go extinct. Let"s use humans, for instance. If the heart was not in place for the first human, all future humans would never live. All of the organs in every creature serve a purpose [3]. For most of these, if that organ was eliminated, the organism would die. So, all of those organs must have been present for the first creature of its type, which is a major leap in evolution, that cannot be made (all important organs in one generation).

Even if Kreeft is scientifically inaccurate and fallible, what he says in this case is true.

I believe that life was created on earth by God. Many things here were created solely for our enjoyment. After the curse and first sin, however, arose toxic snakes, invasive weeds, etc. I believe that while there are many things of difficulty on the earth, they are outnumbered by the things that clearly evidence design [4]. We can look at these things of design and workmanship and see that someone must have made it. It simply cannot have arisen from nothing, as evolutionists suppose. David Darling said, "What is a big deal"the biggest deal of all"is how you get something out of nothing. Don"t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either"despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning," they will say, "there was nothing"no time, space matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which . . ." Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? . . . Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats." [5] Not only could this be applied to the cosmos, but to organisms on earth as well. In addition, there are many problems with evolution, which I state above.

Sources:
[1] http://www.washington.edu...

[2] http://www.nature.com...

[3] https://answersingenesis.org...

[4] https://answersingenesis.org...

[5] https://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 3
CosmoJarvis

Pro

"only Creation explains the origin of matter and life, while evolution only explains (or attempts to explain) the origin of life, leaving out the obvious question, 'where did that material come from'. In addition, if it can be proven that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim, but is nearer the age that young earth creationists estimate"
My opponent argues that Creationism is more "logical" because it provides a convenient and simple answer for how the world was created. Certainly, it is much easier to answer life's greatest mysteries by claiming a non-material being such as "God," was somehow involved, but is there any evidence to support this idea? As of now, my opponent has not provided any evidence for Creationism. He fails to even discuss Genesis or God. In fact, his first argument only used the term, "God," once, and only because it was a quote from Peter Kreeft. He has provided no evidence of a God nor anything to prove the events in Genesis.

An even greater question than, "where did the world come to be about according to Evolutionism," is, how was God made? How do you know there is one God? What proves that there aren't multiple Gods? What evidence shows that this "God" is the Christian God, and not Allah, or the Egyptian Gods?

"An amino acid is 'complex', this characteristic being largely in the eye of the beholder."
An inorganic molecule such as prebiotic molecules have the potential to create basic organisms and, through evolution, can grow into more complex organisms. This is strongly supported by scientific research and experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment, which shows that basic molecules and compounds can synthesize more complex and organic compounds in conditions that simulate Earth's early atmosphere.

Personally, I find it astonishing how easy it can be accepted that the concept of a God, a supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being was "always there," as in that he is "eternal." Religious people are perplexed by the idea of inorganic life synthesizing organic life, yet the belief that an all-knowing and all-powerful being created out of nothing can exist should be even more surprising!

"I believe that while there are many things of difficulty on the earth, they are outnumbered by the things that clearly evidence design. We can look at these things of design and workmanship and see that someone must have made it. It simply cannot have arisen from nothing, as evolutionists suppose."
What are the things that are "clearly evidence design?" My opponent has failed to provide any examples, so as of now, I am not fully able to refute this claim. However, because this claim goes unsupported because of a lack of evidence, this claim can neither be accepted as truth.
subdeo

Con

Indeed, I have provided evidence for creation. For example, I gave my argument from design.

To answer your religious questions, no one made God, he is eternal. God tells us there aren"t multiple gods, and he is the only one. We can know he is telling the truth because of His "past record". He has never lied before. All of His prophecies of have come true, and He is the only God we have the least shred of evidence for.

Ah, while the experiment may have proved one thing about amino acids, it did not prove macro-evolution. Maybe they made an amino acid. If someday they were to make a Frankenstein-esque creature come alive, even still they would not have proved evolution, because evolution requires the evolving of a creature into another. This has no evidence anywhere. The experiment only managed a small molecule, not the Human race or any race.

I gave examples that clearly evidence design in my last post! The link about it gave many examples. Another example is the Fibonacci numbers. Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers "characterized by the fact that every number after the first two is the sum of the two preceding ones" [1]. These numbers are remarkable because the sequences found therein are commonly found in everything in nature [2]. There can be no reason for these to exist without an intelligent designer doing it just because he can.

In conclusion, the theory of evolution has not been proven and has no evidence. Also, we have no transitional fossils that we should have. The universe is not nearly as old as would be necessary to allow for enough time for life to evolve. On the other hand, intelligent design is a much better alternative. We can see evidence of a creator everywhere we look. He is the only logical explanation for the origin of matter and the laws of physics in the first place.

Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://io9.gizmodo.com...
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 9 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Good debate, Subdeo
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MicaylaMae// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: You both have made very detailed arguments, and this was a well written debate. But con stuck with his information the entire time, while pro constantly gathered new information. Based on this, I personally have to vote for con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters, and not merely to determine who "stuck with" certain information throughout the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Sensorfire 9 months ago
Sensorfire
Also, as Cosmo brings up, if you make an assertion (for example, God created everything), you need proper evidence that it's true. And what's the origin of your God? If you're so adamant on evidence that the Big Bang occurred and where all matter came from, you should provide evidence of where exactly this God came from.
Posted by Sensorfire 9 months ago
Sensorfire
"So far, only Creation explains the origin of matter and life, while evolution only explains (or attempts to explain) the origin of life, leaving out the obvious question, 'where did that material come from'."

Evolution isn't a competitor to creationism. There's no reason that the theory of evolution should have to answer that question, because that's not what the theory is ABOUT. That's not even RELATED. There are scientific theories about that issue, but this debate is, as evidenced by the title, not about those.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
I'm actually working on it now, and I'll complete it in the afternoon.
I got this covered, man :^)
Posted by Sensorfire 10 months ago
Sensorfire
Cosmo, you've got eight hours.
Posted by subdeo 10 months ago
subdeo
I apologize, I seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the debate. However, my points still stand, because if the universe is not billions of years old, than life cannot have originated 3.7 billion years ago.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
You're right, Sensorfire. I intended to debate specifically the creationist view for the origins of life. However, that will not prevent me from explaining, from a science perspective, how life may have cultivated on Earth: prebiotic molecules, asteroid collisions, and abiotic synthesis.
Posted by Sensorfire 10 months ago
Sensorfire
"The first problem with evolution is the fact that it fails to explain the origins of matter and the laws of physics in the first place."

Cause it's not supposed to? The theory of evolution by natural selection is about how species adapt to survive their environments. Nothing to go with the origins of matter and laws of physics. If you're going to refure something, at least know what it is!

I can't speak for CosmoJarvis, but with "Evolution vs Creationism", I'm pretty sure what was meant was "Evolution vs the creationist view of the origins of life".
Posted by Sensorfire 10 months ago
Sensorfire
Haha since when is the theory of evolution supposed to explain the origins of the universe?
No votes have been placed for this debate.