The Instigator
roark555
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Con (against)
Winning
11 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 2 votes the winner is...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 66971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

roark555

Pro

I will be debating on the side of evolution. Con will be on the side of creationism.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

I will support creationism in this debate and show that creationism is fundamentally a better theory and the evolutionary model.

Contention 1 is time-scale

a. Evolutionist believe that evolution occurs due to natural variability and mutations in genetics. This theory is an assumption which is not in fact supported by substantive proof. Evolutionist claim macro evolution based on the findings of micro evolution and assumes that micro evolution points to macro evolution when in fact it does not.

"The observable changes that evolutionists cite as evidence for their paradigm, such as in sticklebacks, bighorn sheep, Atlantic cod, pollution-resistant worms, and antibiotic and pesticide resistance are all going the wrong way. They"re the direct opposite of what microbes-to-man evolution requires."

Not only are these changes in the wrong direction but Evos (evolutionists) must admit that all mutation we see are destructive in nature. The Evolutionary Model Cannot Account For This Fact...every mutation we see is destructive in nature and not beneficial, even the minor ones. cancer is a great testament to this fact.

We should see a vaster array of species. For instance why is it that only homo-sapiens roam the world, why is it that there are no more neanderthals or differing human types still alive to this day? Furthermore, why hasn't the human population mutated since the dawn of recorded history in Any Way?

Evolution simply doesnt have enough time to occur on such a vast and specific scale as claimed, even accepting the idea that the earth is 4.54 billion years old (which isn't fully proven) and especially acknowledging the fact that almost all mutations are defects.

b. Evolutionistic ideas as opposed to creationist ideas don't hold up in the Grand Scheme of things.

As logical people we must be sure to address the simple fact that matter can neither create nor destroy itself. In the physical realm infinity is impossible, the universe had to have had a starting point and in the current scientific view, there had to have been at one point, nothingness. This idea is impossible, there cant be nothing and if there were it is completely scientifically illogical to believe that two particles would instantaneously be created and cause the big bang. In essence we come to the problem of the push back.

In the push back we simply keep asking where the origin of the origin came from. What was before the big bang? What was before the before the big bang?

The creationist model can account for this however. The bible says that the Earth was created in 7 days. Fundamentalists took the english translation as fact and so assumed 24 hours was a day. The reality however is that the word used in the bible for 'day' is a poetic termed used to mean "a period of time". The word used is "yom" and can mean Several things related to time, only one of which is a twenty-four hour period.

yom- 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year.

Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, both compare a day to a thousand years demonstrating how this word can be used to mean different periods of time. God is a being who exists outside of the realm of time and space however. That is how he created it and that is why The Push Back does not apply to the creationist view, God operates outside of our perception of time. He is the one who created it you know...

c. Creationist view points are essential to a moral standpoint for humanity.

Without god's decrees which give us a moral base, humanity's moral outlook must be completely subjective while god shows us that some things are definitely wrong and some, definitely wrong. Evos absolutely cannot escape the fact that evolution means that morals are invented and imagined and accepting an evos view point means that you can no longer believe that your moral compass is correct because each person has their own moral compass and it is not your place or right to impose your beliefs on them. This truth is acknowledged by leading atheists. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." Richard Dawkins, a leading voice of atheism, says, "Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." In terms of the debate, voting affirmative means accepting that there is no real meaning to life and morals do not exist, it is to throw out your very human nature.

Evos are trapped in a mental cage. The only way to prove god's existence to them would be to show physical evidence. To show that some laws have been broken in the physical world. This cannot happen of course so there is no way to prove, with physical evidence, the existence of god.

d. The argument from truth
1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

e. The origin of the idea of god
1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God"an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
6. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
7. But only God himself has those qualities.
8. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
9. Therefore God exists.

f. The world wide general consensus
1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

g. Pascal's Wager
creationists are often denounced because they rely on faith in stead of scientific consensus or lack thereof, in fact it is atheist who have the most faith though. I've shown many large flaws in atheist and evo ideology and I have only scratched the surface. Religion has been the most longstanding and traditional outlook. Current atheist and evo ideas deny the consensus and go off on a limb based on their personal beliefs so they rely on just as much and often times more faith than believers. one nice demonstration of this fact is what is called Pascal's Wager which is a fairly simply line of logic concerning the result of either belief:
If you place your bet with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing."

In conclusion Evolution is not a reliable theory and there are many many holes in it, it simply doesnt have enough time to occur. atheism fails because it doesn't recognize that there must be a being outside of reality which created it and without a creator we have absolutely no moral compass on which to rely. I have also provided a plethora of logical proofs and for those reasons I can only contend creationism over evolutionary ideas.

http://www.trueorigin.org...
http://creation.com...
https://answersingenesis.org...
http://www.compellingtruth.org...
Debate Round No. 1
roark555

Pro

You have made a plethora of fallacies. The first was calling both evolution and creationism theories. Theories are not merely assertions. In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world That is acquired through the scientific method And repeatedly tested and Confirmed through observation and experimentation. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Plate tectonics is A theory. Creationism is not. You talk about how a creation worldview is necessary for morality. This, although not true is completely and totally irrelevant. This is not a debate about ethics. This is a debate about whether evolution is true or not. However, I will provide links to several sources about secular ethics. You also bring up the big bang, and talk about atheism in general. This is 100% irrelevant so I shall not address it. Stay on topic please.
This is not a debate about the existenCe of god, and I would be more than happy to debate that with you at another point. This debate is SPECIFICALLY about evolution vs creationism, and you only address evolution once, maybe two times in your entire argument. You literally may as well have started talking about your favorite movie, or table tennis, or about how cheese puffs are most certainly better tasting than potato chips. Tell you what: after this debate, you challenge me to one on the existence of god. Then you can say all of that. Then you have your actual comments about evolution. Could you please elaborate on exactly what you mean in your second body paragraph? The one about microbes to man? Then I shall address it. Every mutation we see is destructive? Not true. The overwhelming majority of mutations are completely neutral. Most are simply inherited traits. Some are harmful, some are beneficial. For exaKmple ( and I'll link these below, at least a few of them.) : Malaria resistance, Tetrachromatic vision, Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Some negative include: projeria ( accelerated aging), EpiderModysPlasia verruciformis.
There really is no micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution, change over time. Saying that micro is valid but macro is invalid is like saying that you can walk two feet but you can't walk 10. The only difference is the amount of time.
Stefan molyneux " universally preferable behavior: a rational proof of secular ethics.": https://board.freedomainradio.com...

http://io9.com...

http://bigthink.com...
http://www2.lbl.gov...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Road Map of my arguments in this speech: Macro v. Micro Evo, Your ethics Citations plus other links, Atheist Evolutionist morality, Concessions

(LINKS) "However, I will provide links to several sources about secular ethics. Elaborate on exactly what you mean in your second body paragraph? The one about microbes to man? Then I shall address it."

a.)As the negative opposition is it not my responsibility to visit links you provide, I can only evaluate evidence and assertions that you provide. If it were not this way then one could simply post an argument full of website links as their rebuttal and would never be required to actually make their own arguments. Links are provided for the affirmative or negative to delve deeper into an argument to prepare for the next and to give credibility to statements asserted. For that reason if you wish to make an argument on ethics then you will have to assert and warrant it in your next speech. I have provided assertions and warrants for you to evaluate and I believe them to be sufficient, if you do not, simply make a claim that my warrant is invalid for any reason that you may think, and I will elaborate from there.

(T) "This is not a debate about the existenCe of god"

a.)This debate is 100% about god there is no escaping that truth. Creationism implies that a creator (God) created all life, Therefore I Must assert that god is a real being, moreover, you have not stated whether you believe god is real and evolution is real. I interpret the resolution to mean that either god is real and evolution does not exist Or god is not real and evolution does exist. One could also deduce you mean this "either or" type resolution because you have stated atheism as your religion. If you would like to say that god and evolution are both real than make that claim, otherwise it is pretty much your obligation to defend that God is Not real. Incorrect?

(T) "You also bring up the big bang, and talk about atheism in general. This is 100% irrelevant so I shall not address it. Stay on topic please. "

a.)As I said. I believe that the resolution you have provided means that either evolution is not real and god is OR god is not real and evolution Is real. This means I must advocate that god is real. Also for creationism to actually mean anything, God must be there to have created life, that is the entire premise of creationism so based on that alone I have to defend that god is real and provide evidence that says so, one way of doing this is showing why I believe that atheism is not real, leaving god as the only other option.

b.) I also want to claim that if god is real then creationism is real as well so if I "win" on that argument then the round must automatically flow my direction.

(Morality) "You talk about how a creation worldview is necessary for morality. This, although not true is completely and totally irrelevant. This is not a debate about ethics. This is a debate about whether evolution is true or not."

a.)The morality argument is relevant, it is a method to show that god is real which is what I must defend and therefore that atheism is something that is not real based on the simple premises of the arguments provided by most evos. Even Richard Dawkins admits that an objective moral truth cannot exist in the evolutionary model at least without god in it. This is not to say that without the belief in god we lose morality and everyone will start murdering each other, it is to say that from the atheists" point of view we cannot claim that something is Really Truly wrong or right, it just depends on how you feel, or what would be best for your evolutionary survival.

(Evolution) "There really is no micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution, change over time. Saying that micro is valid but macro is invalid is like saying that you can walk two feet but you can't walk 10. The only difference is the amount of time."

a.)I disagree, Micro evolution is found in experiments such as the Fruit Fly experiment where generations upon generations of fly"s were hit with low level radiation and after 60 years the only differences found were useless sets of wings and strange colors in their eyes and skin. They never became structurally different, we have never seen structural changes in organisms since we have been on this Earth only slight slight changes in resistance ect. Scientists have failed to show that the Primordial Soup which all life came from exists and have never been able to create on of their own. That is why evolution only works on a micro but not macro scale. Macro has no concrete proof.

(Concessions by NEG) "You have made a plethora of fallacies. The first was calling both evolution and creationism theories. Theories are not merely assertions. In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world That is acquired through the scientific method And repeatedly tested and Confirmed through observation and experimentation. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory."

a.)Neg concedes that evolution is a theory and creationism is not. However It's not just black and white like that. Although a "theory" in science is something that has experimental verification, in principle, a "theory" can't be 100% truth. The goal of formulating a theory is to get as close to the truth as possible For instance, the Newtonian theory of gravity and the theory of gravity using vector fields is a good enough theory for engineers to use when they want to send a satellite into outer space. So this theory of gravity is "true", but it has some problems. General relativity is a better theory of gravity because it fixes the problems in Newtonian gravity. So even though Newtonian gravity can be considered as a "fact" because it makes accurate predictions, general relativity makes even more accurate predictions than Newtonian gravity. And even general relativity has it's problems (ie, it can't explain gravity at very small scales), which is why a lot of theoretical physicists today are working on a theory of quantum gravity in order to understand gravity at the center of a black hole or gravity in the very, very early universe.

b.)What I believe is that evolution is a Very flawed theory which need major revisions and also that creationism accounts for the origin of man better than Evolution.

Concessions by the affirmative.

Pro has currently not responded to the following, which means that they have admitted that to be true as of now. The rule in debate is almost always that "silence is compliance".

1.that evolution doesn"t have enough time to happen
2.d. The argument from truth
3.e. The origin of the idea of god
4.f. The worldwide general consensus
5.g. Pascal's Wager
6.That current atheist and scientific views cannot account for the orgin of the universe but creationism can

I"m having a great time and I look forward to our next round roark555 :P
-TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Debate Round No. 2
roark555

Pro

I will start by clearing a few things up. Firstly, I never meant the links I posted to be arguments. I posted them in case you were interested in looking at them.mostly though, it was for the people who are looking at this debate, if they were interested. I also posted the one about ethics because I wasn't ( and still am not) going to debate morality in this debate because it is irrelevant. This is not the consequences of evolution, it's about is evolution real. AIDS is real. AIDS has consequences. But the CONSEQUENCES of AIDS and whether or not AIDS exists are two separate disscussions. In the same way, the existence of evolution and the "moral consequences" of evolution are seperate issues.
Although, I certainly would recommend reading that book I linked you. It's free, and not very long.
This debate is NOT about atheism. It is possible to believe in a god and evolution. Take kenneth miller, a molecular biologist who is also a devout Roman Catholic, and opponent of intelligent design. You completely discount the possibility that there was an "intelligent designer" that used evolution. The fact of evolution does not mean there is no God.
I will not adress points that pertain to morality or the existence of God. You can take that as the signature of my agreement, but I don't care. They have no relevancy to this debate.
Now, lets look at your points shall we?
As I understand it, you have two main points against evolution. One is time scale, and the other is that macro evolution has no concrete proof. You state basically( if I'm not mistaken, and please tell me if I am) that 4.5 billion years is not long enough to account for the diversity of life, or at least something of that ilk. My simple rebuttal to that largely consists of: where do you get this information? Is it just an opinion? Because opinions have no place in science. An argument from personal Incredulity is not a valid argument. The evidence shows that 4.5 billion years is enough time. It's quite a long time actually. Once conditions on the earth improved, natural selection took over because conditions were improved for life to flourish.

Now in regards to macro evolution. There are many misconceptions about this topic. For example:
1.) Crockoducks. I'm sure you've heard creationists talk about this, about how no one has ever found a half crocodile half duck hybrid. Well of course not. Because if we did, then evolution as we know it would be false. Nobody that understands evolution would say anything like this. I'll give you and example. Modern horses are descended from Hyracotherium, a species that existed about 50 million years ago. This creature didn't one day say " you know what? I'm going to change into a bigger mammal named a horse" and started to change over successive generations until now we have the various breeds of modern horses. It was by the process of natural selection. The taller bulkier specimens were favored over the smaller traditional hyracotherium, and the smaller ones were weeded out until finally we have the modern horse. Natural selection has no direction.
2.) Macroevolution has never been observed, or so creationists say. The reality is Macroevolution had been observed multiple times. It's just harder to observe than microevolution, primarily because it takes longer. When studies are brought up such as the fruit fly one you brought up, creationists usually say that studies like that don't count because they are still flies, or fish, or salamanders or what have you. Well... Yes. Evolution would be wrong if anything else were the case. Creationists demand that the offspring be so different from their parents that they don't even appear related. " I've been a farmer my whole life, and I've never seen a cow give birth to a sheep!". What's funny is that the theory of evolution has beer stated that one "kind" of animal could turn into another " kind". Unless, that is you ignore everything that happens in between.
Here are some examples of Macroevolution( links below) :Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Thank you for accepting! Looking forward to more!
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

From this point forward I shall take a more formal procession to the rest of this debate as it may be simpler to keep track of what is going on, let's begin:

Round Abuse
Pro has abused the round by changing the definition of the resolution. He asserts that this is a debate about if evolution is real instead of competition between evolution and creationism.

"This is not the consequences of evolution, it's about is evolution real"

Definition of Versus: in competition with another idea

This is a voters issue because the negative team can not expect what to argue over in the round.

Are we debating over god
This round's resolution imply's that the debate will be a competition to see if creationism is better than the theory of evolution, or vice-versa. In order to assert my side of the argument I must claim that god is real. I can use any method I please to accomplish this, including debating morality. Pro ignores my arguments and thus concedes them, meaning they must be considered true. Earlier in the round I asserted that, If con accepts that god and evolution are both real then the round must flow my direction. He as not responded and because in debate 'silence is compliance', he concedes this, thus he has handed me the round as of now.

not enough time for evolution

Darwinian Evolution, , "Time Required for Macroevolution to Occur," No Publication, http://www.windowview.org...
The short answer, in plain language, is that life appears to have taken hold on earth so quickly that virtually no time was available for chemical evolution to take place. Beyond this, there is no prospect for an evolution of information nor for chance to account for change in species leading from one major phylum of organisms to the next (as is suggested by a wide variety of tree diagrams). When calculated, the time necessary for chance to do the required work amounts to more time than what has elapsed for the known universe from its creation at t = 0 to the present.
Debate Round No. 3
roark555

Pro

roark555 forfeited this round.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Please extend of of my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
roark555

Pro

roark555 forfeited this round.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Con

Please extend all arguments and note that my opponent has conceeded that he loses this round, thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
There is a lot to adress here. As I am busy, I may not be able to respond till tomorrow.
Posted by BDPershing 1 year ago
BDPershing
So, your ignoring the forming of earth and how it came to be, just some magical being said "poof" earth?
Even though evidence shows the development of earth? Reason why we can say earth is 4.54 billion years old. The planets around us are proof the different courses a planet can take, yet you claim a planet doesn't have conditions during formation that could limit life development? Yet mars who's so similar to earth that we could theoretically make it an earth planet by Terra-forming, didn't develop surface life?
Your avoiding the question:
Now another question is during infinite time when would said monkey type hamlet, refer to a never aging monkey, for this matter of fact fool who's worried about details, who does not get bored. Do to being random, if we had said monkeys in separate dimensions of creation, which on will type hamlet first?
The question is simple, can life develop at different times, do you stat no? There is a set time period at which life will only develop right then? before this moment life simply cant exist. Not before, anywhere in this universe? The universe is believed to be 13.7 billion years old, so no time before 9.12 billion years after universe was created life could exist?
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
no, it wouldn't; because the divine being of the universe, God, created the earth not "conditions" on a planet and evolution....
Posted by BDPershing 1 year ago
BDPershing
You provide a irreverent point about a monkey wont live long enough, the point simply being giving enough time something random will eventually generate something relevant. You stat that it must have been magic but i'll simply counter with another type of creator, intelligent life, not one "being" but another species/ race. Given the developments that humans have made so far, even with some of the more regrettable setbacks, it is possible for us to make a new species/ races, genetics simply allow this, its like inputting code into making a program to run on a computer. Cells are simply hardware that given the write coding can be formed in a new species. with that said the only basis for man being created is by species with greater development of our own who have the pass time of "playing god". Another argument that creationist use is the fact are reality is so close to not existing, 1 element could change this dimension to never evolving life, but given infinite time and dimensions eventually you will get that random occurrence of life as we define life in this reality. But that's diving into another rabbit hole for another day.Now another question is during infinite time when would said monkey type hamlet, refer to a never aging monkey for this matter of fact fool who's worried about details, who do not get bored. Do to being random. if we had said monkeys in separate dimensions of creation, which on will type hamlet first? See you stat that 4.54 billion years isn't enough, but were 1 out of trillions of planets like ours would it not be possible for one planet to develop life early due to the conditions of said planet?
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
With infinite time a monkey cannot type out shakespeare's Hamlet. A monkey will simply die after about 15 years and we all know that a monkey isnt going to bang on a keyboard for more than about 15 seconds before he gets bored and decides to throw his feces at someone. The example is bad but I get what you're saying. Theoretically if we had a computer which randomly entered in letters for eternity then we would get hamlet in some number of googolplexia...but we don't have a googolplexian amount of time. We have at most 4.54 billion years and while this may seem like a ridiculously long amount of time, it is simply not enough time for evolution on this scale to occur how Evos claim it occurred.
Posted by BDPershing 1 year ago
BDPershing
With infinite (infinity) time, a monkey can write out word for word any book ever written.,given enough time anything is possible. The con argues that Evo's live in a mental cage, yet Creationist make the most extraordinary claim that god created it all, though evo's simply stat what created it we don't know YET, But how it came to be up till now is this... A Evo simply says we don't know yet a creationist stats it was god period. Extraordinarily claims need extraordinary proof. You claim we are nothing alike to other species yet all species are made of cells, cells are extraordinary for they can take form of anything that dna dictates. dna itself is full of old peaces of data that we simply never use anymore yet we can find the same dna coding in other species, its all about turning it "on". You ask why no other species of humanoids exist? Well some killed each other, some failed to keep up with the ever changing world, some died to disasters. The hardest of creatures survive to continue, its possible the other "races" of humanoids simply killed each other off for they were different, don't we currently go to war due to someone being different in are world today? See creationism avoids the question and stamps it as "solved" using magic as an excuse. Are ancestors did the same thing, The titans the Olympians, the Egyptian gods etc... Mythicism has been used for too many millennia to answer questions that people claim to be too big to solve, may be the time to change that status.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
I disagree with you, but I'm more looking for a creationist. I would however be more than happy to engage you in the comments.
Posted by Mohammad_AlSari 1 year ago
Mohammad_AlSari
I believe that Evolution could be true only if it were a guided process by an intelligent God.

Do you accept that I take that stand in the debate, or do you want to debate a hardcore creationist?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
roark555TheJuniorVarsityNoviceTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Rubikx 1 year ago
Rubikx
roark555TheJuniorVarsityNoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit.