The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Con (against)
Losing
37 Points

Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,818 times Debate No: 7418
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (16)

 

Kleptin

Pro

I am issuing this challenge to the member GodSands, who I personally believe to have profound understanding of Christianity. However, I also believe that his views on Evolution, while justified, are not necessarily correct based on my own knowledge.

My opponent's initial argument from the forums was that Time, Life, Death, and Mutation must have been created simultaneously. I am of the position that this is incorrect.

I will allow my opponent to make his initial argument, as well as expand on his proof as set forth in the forum. I look forward to his response.
GodSands

Con

Evolution will fall apart if the foundations are not found. According to evolutionists scientists, evolution develops its children over millions of years, by saying that I want you to describe evolution with out the convenient, over million of years this happened excuse. If you use time the creature remains the same kind. If not explain the change as if a change of a lion to another cat.
Which came first? Death, if so then something must be alive, or mutation, again something must be alive, if so then a mutation would have taken place and so death. And long with that all time would have to occur. If evolution relies on these four equally to occur then surely if there is no life or death no time for life there is no mutation. No evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

My opponent is trying to show that Evolution could not have taken place over millions of years because of a paradox. I am asserting that my opponent's paradox is the result of flawed logic and poor understanding.

"Time" has always existed. Then came "matter" and "energy" and with those things, "change"- the things that allow humans to perceive time. Matter, energy, and change then produced Life, Death, and Mutation, in accordance with the laws of physics.

Life and Death are merely the summation of the results of change in matter and energy, much like how dawn turns into day, but you don't know when.

Thus, my opponent's initial argument is completely incorrect. There is no paradox, and evolution is possible.
GodSands

Con

Can you give me a example of a creature turning from one kind to another? I do not care what this sounds like but if evolution is true, there should be 10 minutes periods where one kind changes into another, like death to life.
Time has not always existed. Otherwise time would never reach the present day. For an individual time could stop at any time. That would be the end of time. When one dies. An analogy like dawn to morning I would use for micro evolution not macro. For there is still the sun rising. That is like saying A dog grows larger over time into another breed Still a dog. Sun still rising So why then does none living matter mutate into living matter There is no mutation in none living matter you do not say a stone is mutating.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

My opponent makes four arguments, and all four of them either wrong or the result of lack of information.

1. There is no mutation in non-living matter.
Non-living matter does not mutate, but it does change. Stones can change, so can non-living matter.

2. Non-living matter cannot mutate into living matter
Scientific studies have shown that given the conditions of early earth, simple molecules can combine to form primitive pre-cells.

3. Time ends when one dies
Incorrect. *Perception* of time stops when one dies. Actual time is not relative to each individual.

4. If evolution is true, it must be fast
Incorrect. My opponent is making this up, and has no argument explaining why it must be so.

My opponent has offered NO argumen
GodSands

Con

1 So when does it become alive? There much be that instent change from none life to life.

2 Scientific studies try to turn lnone life into life. Even with itelligentce they struggle, what gives you the impression it can be done alone?

3 Yeah ok I agree, I will not fight incorrectly.

4 No I meant evolution occur in a micro state over millions of yeras, then suddenly one species changes from its kind into another. Otherwise it would never change. If evolution is true why are no reports of this? That would make evolution science. Not myth.

Again why are you denying science. Would that not be science if evolution occured like that? It does not occur because I can not witness it no one can. Evolution detrays us because of that.
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

1. Incorrect. Dusk eventually becomes night, but it is impossible to say when this exactly happens, even if you are watching the sky.

2. Incorrect. They did not TRY to make life. They put random things in a pool, mimicked the conditions of early earth, and saw pre-life develop on its own.

10 hours to set up dominoes in a pattern, and in 1 flick, you can see beauty, wonder, action. Perhaps God set up dominoes and just flicked it?

4. Fossils are very, very rare. We have fossil #1 and fossil #2 and recently discover fossil #1.5, you want us to find fossils #1.1, #1.2, #1.3, #1.4, #1.6, #1.7, #1.8, #1.9 as well? This is like saying you want me to tell you when dusk turns to night within a fraction of a second.
GodSands

Con

Right dusk does become night. It still involes the sun rising and setting, like many species of frog are posioness. By saying all mamales can walk is jumping ahead, focus on a kind and then say their unique quality rise and set like the sun.

They put random things in a pool and Poof life. Magic much. Be more accurate. Still with a mind behind it though.

No I can say boldy God has nothing to do with evolution and the big bang. I do not worship 2 gods. One sitting back while the other commands nature. "Your time to take over god number 2, Ive done my part. Arrr gooda."

Yet billion and billion of creature have died. That is like saying, "I am in every film since 1990 but you can not see me because I am very rare and hard to spot."
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

Your counterargument assumes that positive traits are one step mutations. Noticeable positive mutations tend to be the result of an accumulation of millions of mutations. This gradation makes your counterargument useless.

Since you lack scientific training, I try to make my argument as simple as possible. Excuse my inaccuracy.

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

Common, early Earth chemicals + Early Earth conditions = primitive pre-life, without intelligent intervention.

Your final argument is also the result of total ignorance. Fossilization is almost an impossibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
GodSands

Con

So that sun rise and sun set thing has blown its fuse then. If you could just prove macro evolution to me, oooo I bet your ears are steaming. Where oh where is that proof, so that evolution can be made universeily scientific. Not just individualily scientific. It is a belief to those who chose not to know God. I can not know evolution becasue I changes all of the time. And there is nothing guilding it. The only way that I could know evolution exist is by knowing every single species of creature ever to exist. Because I know God, I have taken the short cut to God through Christ. Evermore I know time will end soon and all your goals will be gone.

"Fossilization is almost an impossibility." What makes you think evolution takes place then?
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Ty, ty, I didn't notice that XD
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Congratulations on your 100th debate, Kleptin.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Thanks for that witty and quirky comment Roy.

Small as in micro. Mirco should be called macro evolution which means there is no swapping or modiflying of any knew kind arise from other kinds. Then again you can say there is just vairiations within a kind and that is final. Proof to me if I am wrong.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
"Small things lead to big things, who says micro evolution is small?"

Ummmmmm, MICROevolution. As in small, minute, or microscopic.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
No resolution, largely incomprehensible, trading insults, no references until the last round. Bad debate. Evolution is well-established, as Pro argued.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
They are both different thing, I do not have to believe in you, but you exist. Why is it any different to God?
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
No, I don't think he exist. This means I don't believe in him. Can't you understand?
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
So you think God exist, you just do not believe in God, like if one does not believe in their best friend to llok after their pet while on holiday. But his friend still exists.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
I'm not against him either. Against means oppose possibly because of hate. I don't oppose him. I just don't believe in him.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
I never said hate God now did I? I said you turned against, God, however let your free will flourish like a flower in this life.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Chase_the_Bass 7 years ago
Chase_the_Bass
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 7 years ago
Molokoplus
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by kevsext 7 years ago
kevsext
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
KleptinGodSandsTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by chip 7 years ago
chip
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
KleptinGodSandsTied
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