The Instigator
jamccartney
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
SandmanTF131
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Evolution vs. Creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,019 times Debate No: 53351
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

jamccartney

Pro

In a recent debate concerning the existence of God, my opponent continued to deny the fact of evolution. Because of that, I wish to start a debate just concerning that topic.
I, Pro, will be arguing the fact that evolution is true.
My opponent, Con, will be arguing that evolution is false and that Creationism is true.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Round 1 is solely for acceptance. To not state your arguments.
Round 2 is for arguments, but not for rebuttals.
Round 3 is for rebuttals.
Round 4 is for final rebuttals and conclusion.

As that is all I wish to cover for now, I will allow this debate to commence.
SandmanTF131

Con

I, Con, accept the challenge and will argue a case against Macro-Evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

I would like my opponent for accepting this debate. In this debate, he, Con, will be arguing the point that Creation is a true claim. I, Pro, will be arguing the point that evolution is a true claim and Creation is not.

Arguments

My opponent is denying evolution. My opponent is denying a fact. My opponent is denying the fact of evolution and believing in Creation. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. It has been proven in every way possible. It's testable. It's repeatable. It's a fact with genuinely viable proof to back it up. Because my opponent does not deduce this, I am obligated to show him the list:

1. Behavior is a genetic trait that is passed on from generation to generation. Our ape ancestors share many of the traits we have today, owing to the fact that modern hominids, such as chimpanzees, have the same traits.
2. The fossil record, which allows for DNA testing and comparison between species, gives us solid proof. For example, we know humans, whales, bats, mice, etc. are all decedents one particular creature because we all share the same formations within the arm, which include the humerus, radius, and ulna. Furthermore, humans and whales share certain bone structures that we need but whales to not.
3. Again, genetics is the foundation of proof, for it proves, with 99.9% certainty, that Homo sapiens have evolved over an extensive period of time.
4. Vestigial and homologous structures, are again, backed up by DNA.
5. Protein sequencing is very similar across certain animals alive today.
6. Natural selection is, again, proven. It works because certain genetic mutations occur. "Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements."
7. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics show us that bacteria that were once killed by antibiotics can suddenly survive it. This shows that bacteria are evolving to suit their environments. This is a proven fact that we have tested in a lab.

How can my opponent deny the years of research, hard work, and studying that has led to the discovery of the revolutionary fact of evolution? It is a fact. It has been proven. Evolution simply cannot be denied. It would be like not believing that the Earth is round, even though it has proven beyond doubt.

Of course, this debate is not simply about proving evolution correct, but about proving Creation wrong. As I have done this before, I can do it again.

"God created man in his own image."
Evolution proves this wrong, doesn't it?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light."
Humans are made mostly of carbon atoms. This, like evolution, is a fact that we have proven time and time again. We also know that carbon atoms, as well as all the atoms that make up this planet, are only formed within the intense head within a star. So how could God have created Earth before He created light? He couldn't, because the atoms needed for the Earth to form had to be created inside stars, which emit light.

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
Obviously, God wants us to kill gays. Objective morality may be false, but I think that is pretty wrong.

According to Creation, the Earth was created in six days. Actually, according to scientific fact, it was created over a period of millions of years.

According to the story of Noah's Ark, two of every creature on Earth went on the Arc. This is sad fur these reasons:

1. There was no way to keep bacteria alive on a boat for 50 days
2. Dinosaurs could not fit on the boat, nor could they resist the temptation to devour the other creatures on the ark.
3. Why are there million year-old trees if there were a flood 4,000 years ago?

Conclusion

I have now given my argument to why evolution is correct and Creation is wrong. I look forward to my opponent's reasoning.

Works Cited

1. http://anthro.palomar.edu...
2. http://evolutionfaq.com...
3. http://www.christianpost.com...

SandmanTF131

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for issuing me this debate challenge. I'm sure it will be quite interesting as my first debate on this site.

First off, I would like to call attention to the way I accepted this debate. I agreed to argue from the con perspective, meaning I am arguing for Divine Design. Now, my opponent claims that evolution is a scientific fact and has been proven time and time again. I agree. But if you will look back to Round 1, I stated that I would argue against Macro-Evolution.
It is a very well hidden secret that there are 2 parts to evolution, Macro and Micro. Micro-Evolution is a common occurrence and we see it all the time in living organisms. It is nothing more than a slight change of current genetic information to adapt to changing conditions. This is the same thing that was observed in the Galapagos Islands with regards to Darwin's finches. Certain finches developed different shaped beaks over time that helped them adapt to the types of food available. Micro-Evolution is 100% accepted by Creation Scientists. I personally see it as an example of God's brilliance in creating all life forms with more genetic information than they use at any given time. This allows them to adapt to various environmental changes in order to survive. Macro-evolution is what is currently being taught today as the explanation for the origins of humanity. For those Finches to Macro
evolve, they would need to evolve into a completely different species. For this to happen, the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with new, additional genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind. In all of the testing being done in all the laboratories and zoos by scientists worldwide, there has never once been an example of even one animal giving birth to an offspring with new, additional genetic information. Only a shuffling or a duplication of existing genetic information. So if the evolutionists are right, we are forced to believe that for billions of years, life has evolved from amoebas in the oceans all the way up through the food chain, growing and increasing in complexity and design, adding new genetic information generation after generation in millions of species for millions of years, but suddenly today, it stops. Now that we have the modern technology, laboratories, and scientists with cameras rolling so we can see it for ourselves, it just suddenly (and coincidentally) doesn't happen anymore. It really does take more faith to believe in evolution than Creation. 100% of all proof
of evolution occurring is nothing more than certain features on animals making slight changes in shape or size, but staying the very same kind of animal. Some dolphins may develop longer or shorter fins, but they have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird.

Darwin once wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description. One of those is the cell. In Darwin's day the cell was a "black box"- a mysterious little part of life that no one could see into. but now we have the ability to see into a cell, and we see that life at the molecular level is immeasurably more complex than Darwin ever dreamed. In fact, it is irreducibly complex. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, wrote that an irreducibly complex system is "composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Another problem that plagues the plausibility of macro-evolution is fact that transitional forms could not survive. for example, consider the Darwinist assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over a long period of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would also be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn't be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for my opponent is twofold: first, there is no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway. Darwinists often say that evidence of common descent lies in the fact that all living things contain DNA. For example, Richard Dawkins states, "The reason we know for certain we are all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical fundamentals." Darwinists believe the DNA similarity between apes and humans strongly implies an ancestral relationship. But is this evidence for common ancestry, or for a common creator? Food for thought. This leads me to my next topic, arguing for a Divine Design.

I am going to take a risk and assume that my opponent acknowledges the scientifically proven fact that the Universe had a beginning, so I will not waste space in proving this. Since the universe had a beginning, we can logically assume that it had a cause. The argument goes like this:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
If there is one thing we have observed about the universe, it is that nothing happens without a cause. The Law of Causality says as much. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or cause. There is always a driver or something that causes that car to appear. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the law of causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."
So we know premise 1 and 2 are both true. But what does that say about God's existence? The man who now sits in Edwin Hubble's chair at the Mount Wilson observatory has a few things to say about that. His name is Robert Jastrow, and his book "God and the Astronomers" made a heavy impression on those investigating the implications of the big bang, namely those asking the question "Does the Big Bang point to God?" Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origins of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." The evidence for the Big Bang and its consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I, or anyone, would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

In conclusion, my opponent must come to grips with the implications of the Big Bang evidence. The evidence shows that time, space, and matter were created at the Big Bang, so the most probable scientific conclusion is that the universe was caused by something OUTSIDE of time, space, and matter. "If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?" Is a question we all have to answer. In light of the debate I have given, we are left with only two options: either NO ONE created something from nothing, or SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is the more reasonable of the two?

Works Cited
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (New York: Penguin, 1958)
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Touchstone, 1996)
David Hume, In J.Y.T. Greig, Ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 Volumes. (New York: Garland, 1983)
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978)
Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Pro

Introduction

I will begin by thanking my opponent for responding and giving me his arguments. As it is now round 3, it is time for my rebuttals.

Rebuttals

My opponent begins by talking about how he believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution, which means he believes all life was put down on Earth by a divine creator, but all that life has begun to adapt over time. He gave the example of Galapagos finches. I now understand what my opponent is arguing.


My opponent wrote: "For this to happen, the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with new, additional genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind."

This is actually incorrect, for when bacteria gained resistance to antibiotics, their genetic code changed and there were both base insertions and base deletions.[1][2][3]


Then, my opponent wrote: "Darwin once wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We now know that there are many organs, systems and processes in life that fit that description.""

First of all, a cell is not an organ. Cells make up tissues and tissues make up organs. Cells are simply part of an organ. Secondly, it seems my opponent does not understand that not all changes in genetic code cause a cell or organ to cease working correctly. An example is certain humans having a heterozygote advantage.[4][5][6] This happens when people have heterozygous traits rather than homozygous traits. This tends to give these people greater skill in fitness and other skills. Another result is bacteria changing their code to be resistant to antibiotics.


Next, my opponent said this: "If there is one thing we have observed about the universe, it is that nothing happens without a cause. The Law of Causality says as much. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or cause. There is always a driver or something that causes that car to appear. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the law of causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." So we know premise 1 and 2 are both true. But what does that say about God's existence?"

This is a good question that I would like to answer. Theists like to say that the universe cannot be created without a god, but they fail to say the same thing about God. How did God come into existence without a creator? The answer is simple: There is no God to create the universe, for the universe came into existence in its own. There is no need for a god if things outside the universe can come into existence without a creator.


Finally, he stated this: "In conclusion, my opponent must come to grips with the implications of the Big Bang evidence. The evidence shows that time, space, and matter were created at the Big Bang, so the most probable scientific conclusion is that the universe was caused by something OUTSIDE of time, space, and matter. "If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing?" Is a question we all have to answer. In light of the debate I have given, we are left with only two options: either NO ONE created something from nothing, or SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is the more reasonable of the two?"

The answer to his final question is simple: No person or being created something from nothing. It's a simple fact. I reasonable answer to what caused the big bang is simply "I don't know." It's a very reasonable answer because it's the truth. I don't know what caused the big bang… My opponent doesn't either. The difference between my opponent and I is that I use science and data to try to explain it while he uses faith and "God did it" as his proof. Data is more reasonable that faith and my opponent must admit that.


Defense for Macroevolution

My opponent seems to deny the existence of macroevolution, so I have the burden of proof for that point. Proof of this is the Guam Rail and Horses.[7] Looking at them today as well as their fossils, we can see that they are not only recipients of microevolution, but macroevolution as well. The ancestors of these creatures were once very small, but grew over time. Horses used to have toes. Rails can swim.

Other proof would be humans. Humans, without a doubt, evolved from apes. Genetic information and fossil records can tell us this. Moreover, we know for a fact that apes evolved from rodent like insectivores such as species from the genus Altiatlasius and Smilodectes.[9]These species are dated around the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras.

So, if my opponent does not believe in macroevolution, how can he even begin to explain the shift from Smilodectes to Homo and Pan?[10]

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have refuted all my opponent's arguments. I believe I have shown that macroevolution is indeed a fact and that Creation is a false conclusion. I patiently await my opponent's response.


Works Cited

1. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

2. http://www.genetics.org...

3. http://www.wiley.com...

4. http://en.wikipedia.org...

5. http://www.ucl.ac.uk...

6. http://www.pnas.org...

7. http://www.macroevolution.net...

8. http://www.talkorigins.org...

9. http://anthro.palomar.edu...

10. http://en.wikipedia.org...

SandmanTF131

Con

My opponent first begins his rebuttals by calling out a part of my argument in which I wrote, "For this to happen, the evolving animal would have to produce offspring with new, additional genetic information. That has never been observed in the history of mankind." He tries to refute this statement by providing the example of bacteria adapting to resist antibiotics. He claims that when bacteria gains a resistance to a certain antibiotic, it is due to brand new genetic code being introduced to said bacteria. He then cites several sources leading to fancy sounding websites and articles. The thing is, nowhere in these websites does it claim that NEW, ADDITIONAL information was introduced to the bacteria. My opponent states, "their genetic code changed and there were both base insertions and base deletions." Ladies and Gentlemen, these are called mutations. His sources say as much, if you would like to read them. Mutations lead directly to my premise, one of Micro-Evolution. If you place a short-haired dog breed in Antarctica, then whenever that breed begins to reproduce one of its offspring will eventually be born with the mutated gene of long hair. That dog will reproduce, and its long haired offspring will be more likely to survive than their short haired cousins, who will eventually die out. Did the dog evolve into a polar bear? No, of course not. It adapted. In this analogy, the cold weather is the antibiotic and the dog is the bacteria. The dogs (and therefore the bacteria) remained the same species, therefore macro-evolution did not take place.

Next, my opponent calls attention to my statement of Charles Darwin's quote, which is as follows.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." I go on to explain how there are many instances in which this applies, and therefore saying Darwin's theory is broken down. I use the cell as a primary example, and my opponent feebly tries to prove this wrong by calling out that, "a cell is not an organ.", yet conveniently neglects that regardless of weather I used in my example the cell, or the human eye (which is, in fact, an irreducibly complex organ.), my premise still stands. Darwin himself stated that his theory would fall apart if it could be demonstrated that there were irreducibly complex organs in which, in the words of Michael Behe, can be defined as being "composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." We have discovered these organs, and yet my opponent still expects you and I both to believe that advanced organs such as the Brain and Eyeball evolved over millions of years from a single cell amoeba.

Next, my opponent says, "Theists like to say that the universe cannot be created without a god, but they fail to say the same thing about God. How did God come into existence without a creator?" I would like to begin my breakdown of this claim by saying that the Universe is finite, and as I have evidenced before, it had a beginning. God is described as "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." By this definition, God is an infinite, all powerful being. If he is infinite, then by definition he has no beginning and therefore cannot be compared with the likes of a finite being. I reject the claim "Everything that exists had a cause", and affirm "Whatever BEGINS to exist had a cause." He then says, "The answer is simple: There is no God to create the universe, for the universe came into existence in its own. There is no need for a god if things outside the universe can come into existence without a creator." Now, this would carry weight if he had provided some sort of evidence to support his claim that the universe came into existence on its own, but I have yet to see it. My opponent even contradicts himself later on, saying "I don't know what caused the Big Bang.", so I this rebuttal is invalid.

Finally, my opponent answers my question of "we are left with only two options: either NO ONE created something from nothing, or SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is the more reasonable of the two?" He replies, saying "The answer is simple: No person or being created something from nothing, it's a simple fact." This, again, is funny, because he then states "A reasonable answer to what caused the big bang is simply "I don't know." It's a very reasonable answer because its the truth, I don't know what caused the big bang." This, ladies and gentlemen, is lazy arguing. My opponent admitting that he doesn't know what caused the big bang does in no way validate his refutation of my claim. He then says, "The difference between my opponent and I is that I use science and data to try to explain it while he uses faith and "God did it" as his proof. " Now forgive me if I am wrong, but I have yet to in this entire debate try to defend myself with "God did it." or "Just have faith.", while my opponent HAS defended himself with a statement of "I don't know." "Data is more reasonable that faith and my opponent must admit that." Yes, data is more reasonable. Luckily, the data supports the Creationist ideals.

My opponent then tries to defend Macro-Evolution using the examples of the Guam Rail and Horses. He states, "The ancestors of these creatures were once very small, but grew over time. Horses used to have toes. Rails can swim." If you read the website article he cites, It says as much. But nowhere in the article does it provide evidence that the Rail and Horse evolved from something that wasn't a Rail or Horse. Yes, the horses may have had fingers instead of hooves, but It was still a horse. It micro-evolved.

Now, as for my rebuttal of my opponent, I will try to keep it short and sweet. The first half of his initial argument was made before he realized I was only arguing against macro-evolution, not evolution in general, so is inapplicable. But, he does attempt to prove Creation wrong. My opponent states,

"Humans are made mostly of carbon atoms. This, like evolution, is a fact that we have proven time and time again. We also know that carbon atoms, as well as all the atoms that make up this planet, are only formed within the intense head within a star. So how could God have created Earth before He created light? He couldn't, because the atoms needed for the Earth to form had to be created inside stars, which emit light."

In this argument, my opponent forgets that God is defined as an all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite being. He assumes that because our rules of logic state that carbon and other atoms that make up our planet are formed inside a star, God could not possibly have created the Earth first, as it says in Genesis. In Genesis, the Earth does come before the Sun. Yet, God DID create the sun. He did create those atoms of carbon. If he could create those from scratch, why couldn't he have done so in Earths case?

Finally, my opponent tries to argue that the story of Noah is implausible for several reasons.
1. There was no way to keep bacteria alive on a boat for 50 days
2. Dinosaurs could not fit on the boat, nor could they resist the temptation to devour the other creatures on the ark.
3. Why are there million year-old trees if there were a flood 4,000 years ago?

Statement 1 is inapplicable. Genesis 6:19-20 says, "19 Bring a pair of every kind of animal"a male and a female"into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. 20 Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive.". Please note that the scripture says "Animal". Living things are classified into 5 kingdoms - animalia, plantae, fungi, protista, and monera. Bacteria belong to the kingdom monera. Therefore, Bacteria are not animals, and were not taken on the ark.

Statement 2 is a contradiction. In this statement, my opponent says "Dinosaurs could not fit on the boat, nor could they resist the temptation to devour the other creatures on the ark." Weird, because in statement 3 my opponent claims the flood occurred 4,000 years ago. Last I checked, dinosaurs were not around 4,000 years ago.

Statement 3 is invalid. The oldest known living tree is around 5,000 years old, not millions of years old. While there are million year old trees still standing, they are, unfortunately, dead. It is no mystery why they are still standing, because we have all seen dried up dead trees still standing in lake beds. In this case, the Earth is one giant lake bed.

I believe I have now efficiently defended my opponents refutations of my claims and also added on some of my own rebuttals to his. I look forward to my opponents reply.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ruf.rice.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
jamccartney

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for responding. I would also like to state a few complaints. First, when quoting me, my opponent has left out the information that works in his disadvantage. He said it doesn't work for me to say "I don't know", but he 'forgot' to mention that I also said he doesn't know either. This is a lie on his part, which is bad conduct. Furthermore, my opponent has continuously only picked the facts that work to his advantage and not the ones that prove him wrong. Here is an example of this:

"If you place a short-haired dog breed in Antarctica, then whenever that breed begins to reproduce one of its offspring will eventually be born with the mutated gene of long hair. That dog will reproduce, and its long haired offspring will be more likely to survive than their short haired cousins, who will eventually die out. Did the dog evolve into a polar bear? No, of course not. It adapted."

In this, my opponent is denying the proof that proves him utterly incorrect. In my last argument, I said this:

"Other proof would be humans. Humans, without a doubt, evolved from apes. Genetic information and fossil records can tell us this. Moreover, we know for a fact that apes evolved from rodent like insectivores such as species from the genus Altiatlasius and Smilodectes.[9]These species are dated around the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras. So, if my opponent does not believe in macroevolution, how can he even begin to explain the shift fromSmilodectes to Homo and Pan?[10]"

In that statement, I showed that these large changes occur over a large period of time. In my opponent's dog example, the dog may eventually change over a period of a million years. The only reason we would not see a change in the dog would be because we simply do not live longer to see it occur.

"We have discovered these organs, and yet my opponent still expects you and I both to believe that advanced organs such as the Brain and Eyeball evolved over millions of years from a single cell amoeba."

As I have already stated, this occured over almost a billion years, not thousands.

"God is described as "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." By this definition, God is an infinite, all powerful being. If he is infinite, then by definition he has no beginning and therefore cannot be compared with the likes of a finite being.""My opponent even contradicts himself later on, saying "I don't know what caused the Big Bang.", so I this rebuttal is invalid."

Again, my opponent has 'forgotten' to quote the next part of my sentence. This is poor conduct and is a lie. My opponent has not made a valid argument here. Secondly, I wish for my opponent to give me proof that God exists. Either show me a picture or show me the mathematical equations. Then, I wish for my opponent to give me proof that an "infinite, all powerful being" can exist. If he cannot, then my opponent must either say "God did it," "Just have faith," or "I concede, for my opponent is correct."

"But nowhere in the article does it provide evidence that the Rail and Horse evolved from something that wasn't a Rail or Horse. Yes, the horses may have had fingers instead of hooves, but It was still a horse. It micro-evolved."

According to this picture, http://upload.wikimedia.org..., the ancestors of horses were not horses. They were Pilohippus, Merychippus, Mesohippus, and Hyracotherium. They were not horses, but a different kind of species that evolved to become horses. Not only the the toes change, the size did as well.

Macroevolution is a result of microevolution. After many millions of years of apes microevolving, they suddenly became bipedal. Then, after more microevolution, they became larger and had an increased brain size. My opponent cannot deny this. He simply cannot.



In conclusion, I shall make my argument as to why the voters should choose a Pro vote. My opponent has made invalid argument after invalid argument. He denies the proof that I give; he denies the proof that he finds while researching; he denies evidence. He twisted my words to work in his advantage. Because of this, I believe I deserve points for more convincing arguments. Vote Pro.
SandmanTF131

Con

I would like to begin the final argument of this debate by thanking my opponent for this opportunity, he has given very good arguments and I hope this has been a learning experience for us both.

In the first part of his conclusion argument, my opponent accuses me of misquoting, lying, and bad conduct. Very serious accusations, which I was surprised to see. He claims that when I quoted in my previous argument that he said, "I don't know what caused the big bang" and left out the part following, where he claimed "My opponent doesn't either", that I was purposefully leaving it out because I believed it worked to my disadvantage. While I can certainly now see why he would think that, It is nonetheless a false assumption. The reason it was excluded from my quotes was the same reason my opponent did not copy and paste my entire argument into his quotes; It did not pertain to the rebuttal I was making. Making the assumption that I do not know something that he also does not know is virtually pointless, and later I will show how he himself contradicts this statement in his round 4 argument.

My opponent then claims that I have "continuously only picked the facts that work to his advantage and not the ones that prove him wrong." He then addresses my "Dog in Antarctica" analogy, and says the following.

"In this, my opponent is denying the proof that proves him utterly incorrect. In my last argument, I said this:

"Other proof would be humans. Humans, without a doubt, evolved from apes. Genetic information and fossil records can tell us this. Moreover, we know for a fact that apes evolved from rodent like insectivores such as species from the genus Altiatlasius and Smilodectes.[9]These species are dated around the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras. So, if my opponent does not believe in macro-evolution, how can he even begin to explain the shift from Smilodectes to Homo and Pan?[10]"

My opponent assumes that because I neglected to address a portion of his argument, that I recognized it as something I could not defend and purposefully left out of rebuttals. This is funny, because I could say the same about an argument I made way back in round two, saying;

"Another problem that plagues the plausibility of macro-evolution is fact that transitional forms could not survive. for example, consider the Darwinist assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over a long period of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would also be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn't be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for my opponent is twofold: first, there is no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway"

My opponent neglected to address this particular argument in his rebuttals. Does this mean that he recognized it as a fatal flaw and didn't attack it, hoping I would not notice? Possibly. Could it just as well be his forgetfulness or any other reason? Again, possibly. In making these accusations against me, my opponent has used evidence he fabricated in his own mind to try and convict me of "denying the proof that proves him utterly incorrect." He calls my supposed actions Poor Conduct, but the Poor Conduct lies in his accusations without valid reason or evidence. While I would happily refute his argument concerning the humans and apes, my opponent will not have a chance to debate my non-transitional argument. So out of respect to him, I feel it would be unethical to do so.

My opponent then quotes me in this,

"We have discovered these organs, and yet my opponent still expects you and I both to believe that advanced organs such as the Brain and Eyeball evolved over millions of years from a single cell amoeba."

As I have already stated, this occurred over almost a billion years, not thousands. "

My opponent corrects me saying "Millions" by replacing it with "Billions", yet then says "Not thousands" as though I somewhere said thousands. If I wanted to, I could easily accuse him of misquoting me as he accused me, but I will not, as I do not know his motivations like he pretends to know mine. Regardless of weather I typed billions or millions or decades, my opponent still did not refute the fact that he expects us to believe that over a period of time, be it long or short, every living creature on this earth, from the enormous elephant with massive tusks to the little gerbil with tiny whiskers, evolved from only one thing; A measly single celled amoeba. I will not make it a new argument, only call it to your attention, but my opponent has neglected to mention all this time where the amoeba, the first life form, would have came from.

Next, my opponent quotes me and says the following;
"God is described as "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." By this definition, God is an infinite, all powerful being. If he is infinite, then by definition he has no beginning and therefore cannot be compared with the likes of a finite being.""My opponent even contradicts himself later on, saying "I don't know what caused the Big Bang.", so I this rebuttal is invalid."

Again, my opponent has 'forgotten' to quote the next part of my sentence. This is poor conduct and is a lie. My opponent has not made a valid argument here."

This puzzles me, because while I did not include the "my opponent doesn't know either" assumption he made, he still claims that I have not made a valid argument, yet fails to say why. (I will quote what he says next in just a bit, you will see that he doesn't)

My opponent then claims, " I wish for my opponent to give me proof that God exists. Either show me a picture or show me the mathematical equations. Then, I wish for my opponent to give me proof that an "infinite, all powerful being" can exist. If he cannot, then my opponent must either say "God did it," "Just have faith," or "I concede, for my opponent is correct."

This is an utterly ridiculous statement. In it, he says that If I cannot provide definitive, undeniable proof of an infinite, all powerful being, that I must resort to "just believe it" claims, or concede from the argument. Now, that WOULD be true, but only if he had 100% definitive evidence for his claim, which he does not! If it was, why would we even be having this debate? Just to prove that he does not, I will quote him in a statement I am sure he regrets saying. "I don't know what caused the big bang" My opponent doesn't either." He said it. He does not KNOW what caused the big bang, so how could me not providing definitive evidence automatically prove his claim correct? It couldn't. This is yet another faulty claim.

Finally, my opponent quotes me yet again and says as follows;
"But nowhere in the article does it provide evidence that the Rail and Horse evolved from something that wasn't a Rail or Horse. Yes, the horses may have had fingers instead of hooves, but It was still a horse. It micro-evolved."

According to this picture, http://upload.wikimedia.org......, the ancestors of horses were not horses. They were Pilohippus, Merychippus, Mesohippus, and Hyracotherium. They were not horses, but a different kind of species that evolved to become horses. Not only the the toes change, the size did as well."

In adding an additional source and failing to address my accusation, my opponent proves himself that the site he initially cited said nothing about the claim he was making. This is faulty citing, the second time he has done it, and an all out lie. But he cites a new photo, surely this proves his claim? unfortunately for him, no. The photo shows what he says it shows, but the assumption he makes based on the photo is faulty. He says "they were not horses, but a different kind of species that evolved to become horses. not only did the toes change, the size did as well." He says this as though a change in size and type of toes constitutes a species change. The photo says nothing to support this. The changes in toe type and size can be attributed to Micro-evolution, not macro. My opponents claim that they were a species other than a horse has no evidence cited to back it, and if you the voters would accept that then I might as well just say "God is real" so that we can leave.

In conclusion, my opponent has accused me of invalid arguments without giving reason, slandered my name in accusations of poor conduct in which he had no evidence, and makes wild assumptions, then stating the assumptions in a way to make you believe they were fact. Twice, he has cited a source and then made an argument claiming something that the source says nothing about, making it nothing more than a lie and an assumption. Combined, this DOES constitute poor conduct, and I have actually given evidence as to why. I have successfully refuted every argument my opponent has made using actual facts, not what I claim to be facts, and therefore I believe I deserve points for the most convincing arguments and an overall debate win. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by W4R 2 years ago
W4R
Is too hard to believe that science is the works of God, as he manages the universe. That God IS the universe.

Maybe God said "let their be light" and then the big bang happened.

Creationism is in relation to the Bible, Creationists believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. In that context, they're painfully wrong.

I believe, in some capacity, but not fully, because I am open to several theories supported by science, that the universe as a whole, is God. Science does not disprove God in that sense, because then it would have to disprove itself.
Posted by YoungZealous 2 years ago
YoungZealous
No thats just called life.
Posted by geno2149 2 years ago
geno2149
Evolution is why you need to get a new flu shot every year.
Posted by YoungZealous 2 years ago
YoungZealous
@Mhykiel is everywhere
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
I am tempted to accept this... but without the creationism is true resolution. Evolution is a self-contained theory and should be assessed on it's own merits. If you wanted a creation vs evolution debate, it should be in the title.
Posted by Tvirus 2 years ago
Tvirus
I would have accepted if you were con I believe evolution. Is real and creationist is fake. Becous I'm atheist
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
Why does the debate have to be evolution against creationism? There are other alternatives then this just this dichotomy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
jamccartneySandmanTF131Tied
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: I give conduct points to Con because Pro became very accusatory towards the end. Also argument i give to Con because he never substantiated that evolutionary theory could cause vertical evolution, only horizontal, and with no proper scientific theory, a creator for a creation is most reasonable. Also sources i gave to Con because those of Pro's i checked out, i couldn't find the info he claimed was there.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
jamccartneySandmanTF131Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied because there was no forfeiture. Spelling and grammar goes to Pro due to him not making the few small errors Con made. Convincing arguments goes to Pro because of the sheer length and complexity of his statements. Finally, reliable sources go to Pro du to him using relevant sources and using plenty of them.