The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The_Lawyer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution

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: 4/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 89246
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Con

I catagorized this debate as "religion" rather than science because Evolution is more of a religion (a false one) than a science, here is my argument:

https://docs.google.com...

Firstly, I will explain how Evolution is a religion; when you believe something not based o factual evidence but on faith, in this case, faith in Charles Darwin's theories, it's called a religion.
The_Lawyer

Pro

I will be proving evolution is in fact not a religion. Good luck and may the best debater win.
____
One piece of evidence that supports my position is in the definition of religion as which follows, "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." When looking back on the definition of religion, it states the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." In the teachings of evolution, it does not teach anything about a superior being creating animals or humans and religion teaches that a superior being made everything living.

Another piece of evidence is that the theory doesn't even explain how the universe began. The theory of evolution explains how all these multitudes of animals exist . It tells us that animals were chosen through natural selection that would go on to macro-evolve or micro-evolve into something else which is its way of explaining how there's so many species of animals. But there is no explanation of the world was created in the first place(The Big Bang is not part the theory of evolution, its separate). How can there be a religion without a beginning, every religion has a way to explain how the universe began.

My last piece of evidence is that your evidence is irrelevant(no offence). My religion is Christianity and I don't believe purely on faith, I know there is scientific proof. For example, the laws of physics is perfect for life to exist. Just check out this link:http://www.godandscience.org...
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

The definition of faith is as follows:
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
Evolutionists have complete confidence in Evolution, which does not exist, and Charles Darwin, basically Evolution is in a sense their G-d, and Charles Dsrwin is their prophet.
Also, I know there is proof in G-d, it's just that most Christians don't have this proof and say that faith is all you need-

You ned to rebuttal all of my case, I worked really hard on that!
The_Lawyer

Pro

True... I understand that evolutionists have confidence in their belief. But is it actually relevant to their case. Faith doesn't define every evolutionists beliefs, most of them believe off the evidence they have. Also there is a difference between confidence and faith, read the response of Mark Barton ( https://www.quora.com... ).

Evolution isn't their version of God. The definition of God is , "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being", or "(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." Evolution doesn't fit those description. Evolution isn't a being, its a idea or a thought.

Charles Darwin is not a prophet. The definition of prophet is as follows ,"a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God." Since Evolution is not a supreme being or anything in the sort, just a thought. He can't be a prophet for there is no will from Evolution because Evolution has no way to think.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

You need to rebuttal my statements!
The_Lawyer

Pro

I did. Read my evidence
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Con

harrytruman forfeited this round.
The_Lawyer

Pro

The_Lawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Con

YOU read MY EVIDENCE!
The_Lawyer

Pro

The_Lawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Take a look at this Declaration we were working on:
https://docs.google.com...
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
Heh.

"Evidence"
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
But I understand what you're saying, but it is false, as you claim that the overbite is not hereditary. Due to the fact that this is my phone, I can't copy and paste stuff, but if you look up "is the overbite hereditary?" all the sources will say yes.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
And that adaptation was passed down through the generations.
Evolution!
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
No, your body adapts yto using forks,
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
So you're suggesting that environmental changes to the body get passed down?
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
http://felinegenetics.missouri.edu...

Also, the way you hold your jaw can affect how it develops, kind of like how ancient people used to tie babiews heads to boards of wood to change their skull shapes.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"Even so 500 years isn't enough time to cause a mutation"

The evidence I gave you proves otherwise.

"8,000 year old cat mummies are identicle to modern cats."

Please provide a link. If you do not, you are, by your own standards, lying.
But even if a link was provided, it is still a null point. Just because one species doesn't change over a long time, it doesn't mean that no other species can change.

"No, it's because our currect jaw shape can withstand ore pressure, if a massive ammount of force wre released on your jaw, and it wee in the state that medeival skulls were in, you would bust up your front teeth."

I'll try and make it real simple for you. In Medieval times, there were no forks. Because of this, we didn't have an overbite. However, we started to develop an overbite when we started to use forks, as the way we ate started to change. An overbite is the result of a physical change in the shape of the jaw.

You suggested that the overbite was because of habit. However, there are skull comparisons, one where there is an overbite and one where there isn't. Do you suggest these inert, dead skulls are still in keeping with habit?
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Even so 500 years isn't enough time to cause a mutation, 8,000 year old cat mummies are identicle to modern cats.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
No, it's because our currect jaw shape can withstand ore pressure, if a massive ammount of force wre released on your jaw, and it wee in the state that medeival skulls were in, you would bust up your front teeth.
No votes have been placed for this debate.