The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
nonprophet
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Evolutionism Vs. Creationism

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...
nonprophet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,398 times Debate No: 55426
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (2)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Pro = for Creationism * Con = for Evolutionism

This will NOT be about the Big Bang or Beginning of Life, although Creationism explains all that together and Evolution is hard to believe without knowing where it started. Please don't be close-minded. I'd like to see a logical argument where we each show evidence and reason for our cases. Each round will bring it's own topics to hand, I'm sure :)

1st of all, I believe Creationism relies on the Bible (vice versa). 2nd, you cannot deny that Creationism has evidence. If you do, I will give you proof during the argument. 3rd, Creationism is HARD to believe in BECAUSE it's hard to believe in a Creator God. Personally, it's no wonder the majority of scientists are Evolutionists because it's so much sweeter, calmer, and easier to believe in a theory which holds together pretty nicely. But there are places where Evolution has no answers , and that is where it stumbles and Creationism wins. Can you give me an easy-to-understand, simple, and short summary of what Evolutionism is? State your evidence.
nonprophet

Con

I'm taking on this "debate" against my better judgement. You can't compare a scientific theory with a story from an ancient book. It's like comparing Einstein's theory of relativity to a mother goose story about how Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

My opponent said, "This will NOT be about the Big Bang or Beginning of Life" Isn't creationism the beginning of the human race? Already he contradicts himself.

My opponent claims "Evolution is hard to believe without knowing where it started"

Evolution is about biological change. It's a fact that in biology, things change. The scientific theory explains how the change happens. It's very easy to understand evolution without having to study abiogenesis.

Now let's get to the "arguments"

"1st of all, I believe Creationism relies on the Bible (vice versa)."
That's circular reasoning. Also, believing something doesn't make it true. The Bible is not a science book and doesn't prove anything scientifically.

"2nd, you cannot deny that Creationism has evidence. If you do, I will give you proof during the argument."
Evidence doesn't always prove fact.

"3rd, Creationism is HARD to believe in BECAUSE it's hard to believe in a Creator God."
It's hard to believe in anything without evidence based on facts.

"Personally, it's no wonder the majority of scientists are Evolutionists because it's so much sweeter, calmer, and easier to believe in a theory which holds together pretty nicely."
Sweetness is a flavor. Yes, it's calm and easy to accept factual evidence. The scientific theory of evolution holds together rock solid.

"But there are places where Evolution has no answers , and that is where it stumbles and Creationism wins".
That's called an argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.


Can you give me an easy-to-understand, simple, and short summary of what Evolutionism is? State your evidence.

Yes, watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com...


Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Scientific facts are part of Mother Goose rhymes? You must believe that an 'egg fell off a wall' since you're so sure everything EXCEPT Evolution is a fairy tale. Creationism doesn't only rely on the Bible. But many of the happenings in the Bible have been proven true, along with the "In The Beginning..." the first chapter in it. There are many facts that prove Creationism's validity. I will not deny that things in biology change and there are some facts that lead to Evolution, but that doesn't mean Evolution itself is fact (you wouldn't say that these facts here automatically mean that Creationism is fact, either). See this site:

http://creationdesign.org...

And side music. Please listen!! Normally I don't like rap, but...

You seem to be misunderstanding (intentionally) my words. I said 'This will NOT be about the Big Bang or Beginning of Life, although Creationism explains all that as one. And Evolution is hard to believe without knowing where it all started.' I smell criticism and irritation in you, and to me, the reason for that is you don't have a good foundation for your belief.

Here's something to try to comprehend. What would MAKE you believe in God? There was an atheist on the internet who said "if I looked up right now and saw, written in the sky: 'HEY, ROGER! THIS IS GOD. I CERTAINLY DO EXIST!'" the immediateness would rule out a skywriter, and natural laws don't create specific, complex messages--only intelligent minds do that sort of thing. This why archaeologists know that the inscriptions they dig up from the ground were made by ancient humans, not natural forces.
Well, it turns out that all life forms contain messages that are far more specified and complex than the messages the atheist above said. How much more? The simplest independent life we know about is the amoeba. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the amount of information in this one-celled life form has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of an encyclopedia--that's 30 volumes x 1,000--in a cell that's much smaller than a grain of salt. Now, believing that 30,000 books came into existence from non-living chemicals by natural law without any intelligent intervention is like believing that an entire library resulted from an explosion in a printing shop! I don't have enough faith to believe that. Evidence for the complexity of DNA is positive empirically detectable, and it points to the work of an intelligent Creator. No natural force can create such a message, especially one that is 30,000 books long. French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal said something like this: God never performed a miracle to convince an atheist, because His ordinary works provide sufficient evidence. One of those ordinary works is DNA.

Rebuttal of your video:
First of all I think it's funny how the British narrator calls it evil-lution.

"Evolution doesn't explain how life came to be or the start of the universe." Evolution doesn't work without an explanation of the beginning which is one reason the theory doesn't make sense to begin with. What was the first animal to ever live? The climate of the earth had to have been different a billion years ago, how did the creatures survive? There is so much chance and randomness in your theory and the evidence doesn't fill my satisfaction.
(0:29) A supernatural Creator doesn't effect the evidence for Evolution? It doesn't effect the EVIDENCE, but say you believe in the Christian God--this contradicts Evolution because the Bible says God created people and animals 'of their own kind.' It doesn't work to believe in a God AND evolution.
A theory DOES NOT mean a fact. Just a 'body of well-substantiated facts.' The problem is, Creationists and Evolutionists both say that they have the best facts therefore each thinks theirs is a theory (body of proven and good facts), and this leads to the issue of whether they are both theories or not. Let's NOT get into that. Focus on just the evidence itself.
(1:37) Selective Breeding has many problems. Take the dog experiment going on, e. g., and you will find that your type of breeding causes deceases and rare disabilities because of the genes, so how did all these species change yet there were no gene problems? Each specie is unique no matter how similar, including apes and humans. Dogs bred artificially have problems--so imagine the problems with natural breeding into new species. How does each specie know who/what to breed with to create an entire new offspring of a new specie?
Mutations=changes within a genetic variation within a population. Think about those last three words. And again, deceases happen, and one thing's DNA is impossible to be shared with another. Has natural "genetic drift" been seen in ANY WAY to happen? I imagine you saying 'no because it happens over millions of years and takes time,' well soon there will be another 1,000 years gone by. What's that you say? Still no proof?
(4:10) "it's not pure accident that all these things happen." This is a lie because it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. According to doing science and math Evolution is improbable (see below).
(6:27) What period of time is given for all this breeding, mutations, and selection to happen? There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections. This means, for evolution to happen, there had to have been 1 fully perfected connection every second, consistently, for two billion years, and to me, that's FAST. To add onto that, the connections have to actually WORK, on the animals, and they would have to happen completely naturally too.
(7:06) If the modern-day apes didn't evolve into humans, what ARE the modern-day apes' common ancestors?

And at 10minutes is where I stopped watching because Evolution IS NOT a fact even though many lying, simpletons say it is! The evidence supporting Evolution may be facts, but that doesn't make Evolution itself a fact! There are many contradictions with your theory and I have just named many. This video also misinterpreted the way the public thinks evolution is. Creationists aren't stupid just because we don't believe in Evolution. On the contrary: most of the smartest scientists declared that there must be an Creator. Like in "God's Not Dead" movie, Stephen Hawkings says it is possible for something to form out of nothing. A great quote by John Lennox says truthfully that "Nonsense remains nonsense even when spoken by world-famous scientists."

One thing strange and thought-to-be unrealistic by people (and you), in the Bible (which Creationism uses) are the miracles. Miracles happen around us nowadays, too, you know. And if you don't believe in miracles then you must also believe (yet AGAIN) that it all happens by chance. Science is explainable but randomness is not.

Creationism is persecuted in a lot of ways: most atheists and democrats look down upon Creationists, devaluing us in life; Creationists are talked about with hatred and annoying sarcasm; your profile even admits that atheists should try to fight/bring down theists. But why? There is no less amount of fantasy or faith in believing in the Theory of Evolution.

If you are willing to face REALITY, and REAL science (not just Evolutionist science) and stop claiming there's no evidence for Creationism and are willing to look at the evidence with an open mind...it works both ways and you can be a nonprophet if you want but I'm going to keep spreading the truth.
nonprophet

Con

I made a simple analogy that comparing a scientific theory with a story from an ancient book is like comparing Einstein's theory of relativity to a mother goose story about how Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
I don't understand how my opponent can interpret that as "Scientific facts are part of Mother Goose rhymes".
I never said that. If my opponent doesn't even understand what an analogy is, I might as well give up trying to talk to him at all.
My opponent claims "many of the happenings in the Bible have been proven true, along with the "In The Beginning..." the first chapter in it."
Well, the happenings in my Spiderman comic books happen in New York which is a real place. So what?
The Book of Genesis has been debunked and is a joke in the world of science.

My opponent admits "I will not deny that things in biology change..."
Well then the debate is over, because that's all evolution is and my opponent won't deny it.

"creationdesign.org" is not a scientific website and isn't evidence for anything.

My opponent asks, "What would MAKE you believe in God?" My answer: god.
If god wanted me to believe in him, I'm sure nothing could stop him.

I shouldn't even respond to the rest of the nonsense my opponent wrote.
DNA s not a book. It's chemicals. There are millions of atoms in a drop of water, If I wrote all that down you'd have a huge "book" too. So what?

My opponent ignored half the video. The video explained how evolution works without knowing how life itself began.
The video explained the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

My Opponent: "your type of breeding causes deceases and rare disabilities because of the genes, so how did all these species change yet there were no gene problems?
99% of all species are now extinct due to gene problems.

My opponent:
"How does each specie know who/what to breed with to create an entire new offspring of a new specie?"
It doesn't know. Evolution doesn't have a goal it's trying to reach. My opponent doesn't have a clue what evolution is and asking that proves it.

My opponent thinks you put together a living thing part by part like on an assembly line

"1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections."

A living organism grows and develops all at once no matter how complex it is. This shows how my oppoenet's mind is clouded by creationism and the concept that something "created" must be put together one part at a time.

That's not how living things come about.

My opponent stopped watching the video so he ignores the arguments and evidence.

Stephen Hawking is an expert on quantum mechanics and physics. He claims something can can form out of nothing.
Who is my opponent to deny that? The quantum world doesn't operate the way normal science does.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

In closing I have to say my opponent doesn't have a clue about what evolution is and how it works. He proved it over and over with his ridiculous questions.
His attempts to debunk evolution were futile since they were based on his own ideas of what evolution is. At least the won't deny that "things in biology change". If he doesn't deny that, he, in fact, agrees that evolution is a fact.



Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Since my opponent can't realize his own words I mine as well give up trying to debate him. The analogy he gave said something like this: 'believing in Creationism or the Bible is like believing in Mother Goose stories,' am I not correct? So if Creationism, and the Bible, have scientific facts and points that prove it's truth, my opponent thinks that scientific facts are also like Mother Goose rhymes.

Are there SCIENTIFIC, PROVEN, FACTS that Spiderman lived? Stop referring my THEORY to lame stories and do some research. I called it a theory because Creationism fits the "theory" definition, and no less than Evolution does. Where's your debunks for the Book of Genesis? Here I know for sure you'll have to do some research.

It depends what my opponent mean by "biology changing." And what I admitted is not just that "biology changes," but that "things in biology change AND there are some facts that lead to Evolution, but that doesn't mean Evolution itself is a fact." Is that even 'admitting' anything? I don't think so. The other thing I said is that, tu quoque, YOU wouldn't admit Creationism was fact because it has lots of facts leading to it, or at least you'd think of something to say instead of admitting Creationism is fact.

"creationismdesign.org" wasn't supposed to prove you anything but instead to show you a bit of how unstable and dumb the Theory of Evolution is.

The thing that makes us not "believe" in God, or rather the obstacle which keeps us from believing there's a Creator, is evil. There is always this lingering something which causes us not to want to believe in God, and the society doesn't want us to think that because God is powerful and there IS a possibility of there being a Creator God.

With all this in mind, if 'God' were your answer to the question previously, that wouldn't make any sense because my opponent doesn't even have a description of who God is! If I were to ask you who you think God is from an atheist's point of view I'm sure you'd say the negative, such as un-loving and 'dumb for creating us,' etc. But I ask you to present and defend your case for how and why you say "God" is the reason that would make you believe in God. How would you know WHO an all-powerful and Of Higher Intelligence, Creator God, even is, since we are so much less than Him? In my opinion, God is in...nature and even in certain people. So I ask you again, please use a Biblical perspective, what would make you believe in God?

If you know one of the main things about DNA, it has information. The information of these tiny cells equals to a written amount of, forgive me, books.

What 99% species are extinct because of gene problems and how do you know that? Where's the proof?

If Evolution doesn't have a clue what it's doing, why are there humans, the smartest (by far) of what you call "animals?"

My opponent keeps interpreting and twisting what I say I did so to make everyone think I'm a hypocrite, liar and ignorant. I don't like this type of arguing, especially in this debate; it is really annoying.

I decided to stop watching the video because it said Evolution is a fact, period. Did you watch my video?

This is too easy to answer. It seems to me my opponent is mad at me for some reason but I can't tell if he's mad at my 'beliefs' or because I'm getting onto him somehow, if anyone knows what I mean!

I'm defending Creationism and explaining it to my opponent. This is Evolution vs Creationism, not just about Evolution in case he forgot. My opponent hasn't given anything wrong with Creationism yet, so I don't see why it's wrong.

There are many kinds of science, dare I say to my opponent, yet you claim the 'quantum world' doesn't do what normal science does.

My opponent's last sentence was explained earlier to him by me saying what I actually said, not just "things in biology change."
nonprophet

Con

"If Creationism, and the Bible, have scientific facts and points that prove it's truth, my opponent thinks that scientific facts are also like Mother Goose rhymes."
But , Creationism, and the Bible don't have any scientific facts at all.

"Creationism fits the "theory" definition, and no less than Evolution does. "
No it doesn't. In order for it to be considered a scientific theory it first has to be falsifiable. In other words, you have to be able to prove it false. If you had the right evidence, you could prove evolution false. You can't prove anything about creationism, because it's just a story. There's nothing you can test or demonstrate about it.
Also, in order for it to be a scientific theory, it has to be peer reviewed by scientists and proved to have the same outcome using different methods. Creationism doesn't fit that at all. It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis.

"What I admitted is not just that "biology changes," but that "things in biology change AND there are some facts that lead to Evolution, but that doesn't mean Evolution itself is a fact." Yes, that makes evolution a fact. Evolution is change in biology.

"YOU wouldn't admit Creationism was fact because it has lots of facts leading to it, or at least you'd think of something to say instead of admitting Creationism is fact." How can creationism be fact when it has no evidence?

""creationismdesign.org" wasn't supposed to prove you anything but instead to show you a bit of how unstable and dumb the Theory of Evolution is." So it just mocks evolution. That's not very credible.

The thing that makes us not "believe" in God, or rather the obstacle which keeps us from believing there's a Creator, is evil." No, actually, the thing that keeps us from believing in god is the lack of evidence.


"If I were to ask you who you think God is from an atheist's point of view I'm sure you'd say the negative, such as un-loving and 'dumb for creating us,' etc."
Um, no. It's not at atheist's job to define what god is. If a theist claims there is a god, it is up to them to define it.
Why would an atheist claim anything about a god that he/she doesn't even believe exists?

"But I ask you to present and defend your case for how and why you say "God" is the reason that would make you believe in God. How would you know WHO an all-powerful and Of Higher Intelligence, Creator God, even is, since we are so much less than Him?"
Ask god how he would get me to believe in him. You doubt he can't do that?

"If you know one of the main things about DNA, it has information. The information of these tiny cells equals to a written amount of, forgive me, books." Everything has information. Even a rainbow has information in it that can fill books. Does that mean rainbows are intelligently designed? No.

"What 99% species are extinct because of gene problems and how do you know that? Where's the proof?"
http://www.nhm.ac.uk...

"More than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. The vast majority (over 95%) died out because they couldn’t compete successfully for food or other resources. Or they failed to adapt to changes in their local environment over tens or even hundreds of millions of years." That's gene problems.

"If Evolution doesn't have a clue what it's doing, why are there humans, the smartest (by far) of what you call "animals?"
When living things evolve, there is no set goal in mind. Evolution just changes things and if it's good for survival, it stays that way, if not, it dies off. It turns out being smart helps an animal survive.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

"I decided to stop watching the video because it said Evolution is a fact, period. Did you watch my video?"
Yes it was a joke, period. It wasn't scientific. Exploration films is "Christian based".
http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com...

"Jobe Martin, a native of Bloomsburg, PA, was a biology major at Bucknell University and a 1966 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Dental School. After spending two years in the Air Force, he established a private dental practice at NASA in Houston. Jobe and his wife, Jenna Dee, moved to Dallas in 1971 when he assumed a teaching post at the Baylor College of Dentistry. In 1982, he made the decision to enroll at Dallas Theological Seminary. He graduated in 1986 with a Masters of Theology in Systematic Theology. Dr. Martin also has an Associates Degree in Business from Eastfield Community College in Dallas".
In other words, Dr. Jobe Martin was conspicuously unqualified to evaluate the evidence for evolution. He hasn't studied evolution, perhaps apart from a class or two in his days as a pre med.


"It seems to me my opponent is mad at me for some reason but I can't tell if he's mad at my 'beliefs' or because I'm getting onto him somehow, if anyone knows what I mean!"
I'm just amazed at the amount of ignorance a single person can have.

"I'm defending Creationism and explaining it to my opponent. This is Evolution vs Creationism, not just about Evolution in case he forgot. My opponent hasn't given anything wrong with Creationism yet, so I don't see why it's wrong."
First, there's no evidence for creationism, so I can't argue evidence that doesn't exist. Second it's not my burden to prove it wrong. It's my opponent's burden to prove it true, since that's the claim he's making.

"There are many kinds of science, dare I say to my opponent, yet you claim the 'quantum world' doesn't do what normal science does."
Yes.

I'm sill waiting for my opponent to provide evidence that creationism is true or should even be considered a "theory".
He talks a lot about things that have nothing to to with evolution or creationism.

Scientists win Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and other sciences that prove evolution true.
I have yet to find a single creationist win any prize for proving anything about creationism.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

My opponent: "In order for (Creationism) to be considered a scientific theory it has to be falsifiable. In other words, you have to be able to prove it false. If you had the right evidence, you could prove evolution false. You can't prove anything about creationism, because it's just a story. There's nothing you can test of demonstrate about it." He contradicted himself by then saying "to be a scientific theory, it has to be peer reviewed by scientists and proved to have the same outcome using different methods." You can't do that if it's falsifiable. My opponent: "Creationism isn't even a hypothesis."

Web: Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for a further investigation.
Its philosophy = a preposition made as a basis of reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Well, I propose that Evolutionism is not on a basis of reasoning and it does have an assumption (not proven) of truth, therefore it's not a hypothesis either. Evolution is very falsifiable and so it is not fact, either.

Scientific facts for Creationism and the Bible:
1). Intelligent Design is a big part of Creationism and the Bible. Believing in that means you believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. Earth's geology can be explained by catastrophism, primarily the world-wide flood that Creationists believe in.
2). Natural mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain origin of complexity.
3). In cosmology, evidence suggest that the universe--including all matter, time, space, and energy--came into existence a finite time ago, contradicting the picture of an eternal and self-existing material cosmos.
4). In physics, science shows that the universe is "finely-tuned" for the existence of life, suggesting the work of a super intellect. (Fred Hoyle).
5). In biology, the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly.
6). In molecular biology, the presence of information encoded along the DNA molecules has suggested the activity of a prior designing intelligence. Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin urges scientists to embrace "a materialism [that] is absolute" and to stick with "material explanations" no matter how counter intuitive.
7). The Mousetrap (example of Intelligent Design by Michael Behe) "Some biochemical processes are irreducibly complex, such as the mousetrap. It consists of (a) flat wooden platform or base; (b) a metal hammer which crushes the mouse; (c) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (d) a catch that releases the spring; and (e) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice." A irreducibly complex thing is a single system composed of well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basis function, wherein the removal of any one part causes the system to cease functioning. It cannot be produced by modifications over a long period of time. Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system cannot function when missing one of it's parts. Now, think of the human cell, which has many MORE parts, and imagine the modifications made to "become" what it is now. It doesn't function unless it has all parts, tell me how that "works." By the way, research Michael Behe, people like William Dembski and Phillip Johnson, and you'll find all the "prizes" they've gotten from figuring more out about Creationism and ID (intelligent design).
Arguments for a designer are generally arguments against the alternative.
8). Not all changes produce fitness, in fact the probabilities of an organism improving on fitness is VERY unlikely. The other options are that the organism is neutral, leaving no effect on fitness, or that it is detrimental which means decreasing the fitness (and that is most likely).
9). Scriptural evidence for the flood: Ark landed on mountain; animals on ark (so they could multiply). Scientific evidence: fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to ocean waters flooding high over the continents; rapid burial of plants and animals; rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas; sediment transported long distances; rapid or no erosion between strata; many strata laid down in rapid succession. I would explain these statements (and give more evidence) but I will run out of "characters." Sorry.

'creationismdesign.org' is not mocking Evolution, it is SIMPLY showing you what is wrong with it. The site proves Evolution wrong. Maybe you should report the bullying/mocking going on here...! (Sarcasm). I can tell, you didn't even look at the website. "That's not very credible."

Changes DO occur in in kinds of plants and animals, but ONLY within fixed limits. This is all that has been proven, this is all I believe. 'Changes in biology' is a wide subject that can be interpreted ma ways, as you have done wrongly.

You said so yourself: evidence doesn't always mean it's true. Stop asking for proof when that's not what matters most: what matters is the logic of each side, and what we should do is ridicule/debunk the other theory cause that goes under the category of figuring which theory is most logical.

You still haven't tried to debunk the Book of Genesis.

If it's not an atheist's job to define who God is than don't say 'God' would make you believe in God. And you didn't state your case for why and how God is the reason that would make you believe in God. This is silly unless you can have a guess at who God is.

Yes, everything has information. Are they intelligently designed? Let's think about that, because the alternative is to say it ALL happened by chance. By saying 'no, not everything is/was created,' you're instead saying that EVERYTHING which is physically in the Universe formed from ONE single life cell. And you don't even know where that life cell came from! You have no good reason to plainly and merely say 'no, information is not intelligently designed.' There is no back-up.

Your website about mass extinction didn't give any proof of these 300-457 million year old animals which supposedly lived once and is extinct. It just SAID so, and that is a great example of the scientists who assume things and--since the given information comes from scientists, it must be true!--and the information ends up on websites and textbooks. Soon everyone is thinking that without doubt, evolution happened. For another example, the Miller-Urey Experiment, conducted in the 1950s, was where scientists tried to prove that a living cell could form from non-living matter. It worked. But there was a problem that wasn't addressed to the public: they got the environment wrong. The scientists contradicted themselves by assuming there probably wasn't oxygen when the first living cell was formed (so they didn't use oxygen in the experiment), but later they dated rocks to be some-millions of years old--when they assumed the earth (itself) was formed--and they decided there had to have been oxygen then. But no, the icons did not change in text-books, and the experiment was still being taught as proof for evolution (and for quite a few years too). Lots of people believe what's in the science text-books because most do not think Creationism has nearly as much evidence therefore the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang have to be correct.

My opponent (about the video): "Yes it was a joke, period. It wasn't scientific. Exploration films is "Christian based".
First of all, what wasn't scientific about it? Second, I believe Dr. Martin made great points, even though some spectators question/doubt his time he said he was an Evolutionist. Third, how can you trust an Evolutionist's own website, written by someone who's just trying to defend his theory and make Creationism look bad, and how do you know Dr. Jobe Martin DIDN'T study Evolution? I ask you, who IS an evolutionist if you don't consider 'someone who studied the subject' one? Who are you to say who is or is not someone who maybe once believed in the Theory of Evolution? And because of the information that got across through the video, it doesn't matter who said it because WHAT was said, is true.

You're calling me ignorant when you say Creationism has zero evidence.

There are many people who have proven Creationism and found scientific facts that fit perfectly with it. This is just more proof of how ignorant you are. Besides, who wants to give out Nobel Prizes to scientists who nobody wants to see prove their theory true? In other words people don't like the thought of there being a God who created us, so why would they want to give a prize to them? You know what I mean, don't try to rebut that. I gave you "evidence" for Creationism so don't be a fool and say there is none.
nonprophet

Con

My Opponent: "He contradicted himself by then saying "to be a scientific theory, it has to be peer reviewed by scientists and proved to have the same outcome using different methods." You can't do that if it's falsifiable."
Um, yes you can. If I say gravity makes all things fall to Earth, the scientists would be able to prove it by dropping all things and see that they fell. Was it POSSIBLE that something may not have fallen when let go? Yes, but none did, so gravity is a fact and a theory, just like evolution.
Creationism can't be proved either way. You can't prove it right and you can't prove it wrong. So it can't be a theory.

Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for a further investigation. BASED ON LIMITED EVIDENCE. Creationism has no valid evidence.

I never said evolution was a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory.

1. Believing something doesn't make it true. The world flood never happened. There is no scientific evidence for it.
2. That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
3. In cosmology, evidence suggest that the universe was once a singularity which is eternal and self-existing.
4. Wrong. Life is finely tuned to fit in the Universe. That's why it evolves.
5. Doubt by whom? Creationists?
6. Richard Lewontin was right to urge that, since there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
7. Mouse traps are man-made, not naturally occurring. You can't compare something man-made to something naturally occurring.
8. Show me the numbers of this probability and where you got them from. Define "fitness".
9 The world flood is scientifically impossible.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

If a website isn't based on science, it's not worth looking at as scientific evidence.

My opponent: "Changes DO occur in in kinds of plants and animals, but ONLY within fixed limits. This is all that has been proved, this is all I believe."
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. If you admit changes do occur, you admit evolution is a fact.

My opponent "what we should do is ridicule/debunk the other theory cause that goes under the category of figuring which theory is most logical."
Creationism is not a theory because it is unfalsefiable.

My opponent: "You still haven't tried to debunk the Book of Genesis."
OK here you go
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Debunked.

My opponent: "If it's not an atheist's job to define who God is than don't say 'God' would make you believe in God. And you didn't state your case for why and how God is the reason that would make you believe in God. This is silly unless you can have a guess at who God is."
Define god anyway you want and I'll still say that the god you defined would be the only thing that could make me believe in that god.

My opponent: "Yes, everything has information. Are they intelligently designed? Let's think about that, because the alternative is to say it ALL happened by chance."
That's a false dichotomy. Evolution consists of natural selection which is NOT chance.

My opponent: "By saying 'no, not everything is/was created,' you're instead saying that EVERYTHING which is physically in the Universe formed from ONE single life cell. And you don't even know where that life cell came from! "
Once again, my opponent keeps bringing up abiogenesis when we are talking about evolution.
Those are two different things.


My opponent: "For another example, the Miller-Urey Experiment, conducted in the 1950s, was where scientists tried to prove that a living cell could form from non-living matter. It worked. But there was a problem that wasn't addressed to the public: they got the environment wrong."

LOL It worked! All this time my opponent has been saying it's impossible to get life from non-life...and now he said it worked!

My opponent: '"Lots of people believe what's in the science text-books because most do not think Creationism has nearly as much evidence therefore the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang have to be correct."
Once again. Believing something doesn't make it true. Creationism has no valid scientific evidence.
A broken thermometer that says it's 150 degrees outside may be evidence that it's that hot out, but that evidence doesn't prove that it is. It's not valid evidence.

"First of all, what wasn't scientific about it?"
Everything. It was just a dentist giving his opinion.

"Second, I believe Dr. Martin made great points, even though some spectators question/doubt his time he said he was an Evolutionist."
So? The points were not scientific and not backed by evidence.

"Third, how can you trust an Evolutionist's own website, written by someone who's just trying to defend his theory and make Creationism look bad, and how do you know Dr. Jobe Martin DIDN'T study Evolution?"
Isn't that third AND fourth? The evolution website is backed by scientific research.
Dr. Jobe Martin studied to be a dentist, not a biologist. He may have taken evolution 101 many years ago. So what? He's no expert on the topic.

"I ask you, who IS an evolutionist if you don't consider 'someone who studied the subject' one?"
If I study Mother Goose stories does that make me a mother goosist? It yes, so what? Mother Goose stories are not proved facts, just like creationism.


"Who are you to say who is or is not someone who maybe once believed in the Theory of Evolution?"
Evolution is a fact. It's not something you believe in, like a fairy tale. It's backed by valid scientific evidence.

"And because of the information that got across through the video, it doesn't matter who said it because WHAT was said, is true."
Prove it with valid scientific evidence. Not by a dentist talking BS.

"You're calling me ignorant when you say Creationism has zero evidence."
Yes, I am.

"There are many people who have proved Creationism and found scientific facts that fit perfectly with it."
I'm still waiting to see any of that.

"Besides, who wants to give out Nobel Prizes to scientists who nobody wants to see prove their theory true? In other words people don't like the thought of there being a God who created us, so why would they want to give a prize to them? You know what I mean, don't try to rebut that. I gave you "evidence" for Creationism so don't be a fool and say there is none."
People don't like the thought of there being a God? LOL...then why do BILLIONS believe in one?
You give Nobel Prizes in science to people who can use the scientific method to prove something real.
Yes, you did give me faulty "evidence" for Creationism, now how about you give me demonstrable, testable, scientific evidence?

My opponent failed miserably at this debate.





Debate Round No. 4
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

I'm disappointed in you because you did not present ANY evidence for Evolution in the entire debate, and I am utterly sick of reading 'Evolution is a fact' and 'Creationism has no valid evidence' from your rounds yet you don't give any back up scientific facts. So, I'm not going to give you any more evidence either except for some websites.

http://www.google.com...
Actually, yes, abiogenesis is a form of your belief in Evolution.

My opponent: "I never said evolution was a hypothesis. It's a scientific theory." I explained why Evolution isn't a theory. STOP MIXING MY WORDS UP. I think you need to find a better hypothesis to stabilize your beliefs so you don't have to keep mixing my words up. Your strategy is not working and it's not proving me wrong in any way.

World flood evidence: http://abcnews.go.com...

Your brain is so trained to Evolution, wow, all your "rebuttals" for the evidences I gave are illogical and lame. For #8 you ask me to show the numbers for the probability of "good natural selection/mutations," not bad changes happening...but I don't need to do that because you yourself should most definitely have evidence for more good changes than bad, since "Evolution is a fact" according to you. Please try to defend your case SOMETIMES.

My opponent: "If a website isn't based on science, it's not worth looking at as scientific evidence." AGAIN, you said earlier that scientific evidence doesn't always lead to a fact.

I said that changes happen ONLY WITHIN FIXED LIMITS.

"Creationism is not a theory because it is unfalsifiable" Ok!? You just said that everything about Creationism is true.

A website doesn't tell me what you truly believe about the Book of Genesis. YOU did not debunk it therefore I do not know if that's truly what you believe. So I will not rebut anything from the site.

God is all around us, I know this because of the patterns in nature (for example). The spiritual world is MUCH more than stories of an all-powerful, infinite, and loving God, in case you do not know! There is sin. Evil. Temptations. Satan. That is why God doesn't show up where-ever. We can choose to ignore everything about the Spiritual world. But we can also choose, if we believe there are higher powers, which to go with: the sinful, temporary, earthly things which come from Satan, OR the side of our Creator. Many people live their lives without any understanding or WANTING to know more besides that of the physical world. If you don't know a thing about God or evil than you can't assume He can just show up whenever, where ever, right in front of you.

Natural Selection has nothing to do with where everything came from. I'm saying, was everything intelligently designed, or did everything form from one single cell? That's not a false dichotomy because there's no alternative.

Evolution does not work without abiogenesis, just as Creationism doesn't work without a God (Creator). If evolution doesn't have a beginning, it's already debunked.

YOU'RE MISTAKING AND REARRANGING MY STATEMENTS to make fun of me, but it's not working! You know what I stand for and you also know that I didn't mean to admit Evolution is true and all your foolish jokes are a waste of everyone's time.

Either you didn't read my rounds or you're ignoring everything I gave you about evidence for Creationism. And I said that many people "believe the theory of evolution because it is in all the text-books and they don't KNOW about Creationism." YOU said "just because you believe in something doesn't mean it's true." Well remember your words, please, especially when you try to back up your belief in Evolution by saying the majority of scientists believe in it.

Do you believe that Evolution happened? There is no observable evidence at all of Evolution happening. There is nothing more stumping to an evolutionist than to ask for observable evidence of one creature turning into another, there's no fossil proof, there's no reliable dating system to predict the age of the earth, and you have to have FAITH and TRUST to BELIEVE that Evolution happened. Can you see evolution? Then it's a BELIEF.

"Dr. Jobe Martin studied to be a dentist, not a biologist. He may have taken evolution 101 many years ago." My opponent committed Genetic Fallacy. The man may not have studied the subject, but at least he's logical.

http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info...

http://answersingenesis.org...
Notice the statement in italics: What does it take to recognize evidence of creationism? Just the ordinary tools of science: logic and observation. Please at least skim over this website because it will give you a clearer understanding of Creationism and how it's quite obvious to see evidence.

Mother Goose has nothing to do with what I said about 'who you DO consider an evolutionist...'

The fact is sometimes hard to see. And evidence does not always prove a fact. I urge you to contemplate this. The media is not always right. Creationism is more than just a belief. It's proven all around us. I don't care if you think I failed at this debate but if I got my point across I think the voters can decide who had better conduct.

Thank-you for giving me a good debate!
nonprophet

Con

My opponent: "Actually, yes, abiogenesis is a form of your belief in Evolution."

Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

They have nothing to do with each other,

I don't have a "belief" in evolution. I accept the scientific evidence for evolution.

Anybody can walk into the Museum of Natural History in New York City and see the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
It's been a fact for over 30 years now.

The "world flood evidence" my opponent provided was about a local flood that happened in the Black Sea. Some "world flood".


My opponent: "...but I don't need to do that"
Anytime you make a claim, you do, in fact, have to provide the evidence to back it up.


My opponent: "I said that changes happen ONLY WITHIN FIXED LIMITS."
If you admit change can happen you admit evolution is a fact...limits or not.
If a small amount of change can happen in a small amount of time, a big amount of change can happen in a big amount of time.

My opponent: ""Creationism is not a theory because it is unfalsifiable" Ok!? You just said that everything about Creationism is true."
Um, no. Just because you can't prove something wrong, doesn't make it true.
You can't prove there's no god. That doesn't mean there is one. You don't prove a negative or a nothing.
The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim.

My opponent: "A website doesn't tell me what you truly believe about the Book of Genesis. YOU did not debunk it therefore I do not know if that's truly what you believe. So I will not rebut anything from the site."
LOL I believe exactly what the website says. It's all facts.

My opponent: "God is all around us, ...blah blah blah..."
There is no credible scientific evidence for anything supernatural. Period.

My opponent: "Evolution does not work without abiogenesis"
It's a fact that life exists. So life came from somewhere. as long as there is biological life, evolution is happening. That's a fact. It doesn't matter how life came to be...a god, aliens, random chemicals...life does exist and so evolution happens.

My opponent: "Do you believe that Evolution happened? There is no observable evidence at all of Evolution happening. There is nothing more stumping to an evolutionist than to ask for observable evidence of one creature turning into another, there's no fossil proof, there's no reliable dating system to predict the age of the earth, and you have to have FAITH and TRUST to BELIEVE that Evolution happened. Can you see evolution? Then it's a BELIEF."

No, I don't believe evolution happened. I accept the evidence that proves evolution happened and continues to happen.
Evolution has been observed in fruit flies.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

There is fossil proof
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...

Radiometric dating is very reliable
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Like I said, I don't use faith. I use evidence to know evolution is a fact.
Yes, I can see evolution and all the evidence that proves it.

My opponent: "The man may not have studied the subject, but at least he's logical."
LOL...So you can prove anything just by being logical? Um, no. You need EVIDENCE that is reliable.

According to the website, "Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christiansdefend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth."
It has NOTHING to do with science. It's useless as any sort of evidence.


My opponent: "Creationism is more than just a belief. It's proved all around us. I don't care if you think I failed at this debate but if I got my point across I think the voters can decide who had better conduct."

Well, conduct is just one point. You can have that point as long as I get the other 6. I proved evolution is a fact.
You just say creationism is "proved all around us". How?
I see trees. Are trees created out of nothing by a god or do they grow naturally from seeds?

I rest my case.






Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by USPharaoh 3 years ago
USPharaoh
Why wouldn't there be life all around the universe.... were are all made up of it's most basic components. There will be no doubt that actual intelligent life exists all around us. Science is slowly unveiling the mysteries that we have been unable to see. It just takes time.... the earliest scientists believed the earth was the center of the universe..... even while mapping our 'stars' and measuring our days/seasons/years.
It took time and inventions like the telescope to better our humanistic understanding.... it took breaking from accepted dogma and the long path of changing minds and hearts to see a different way.

Unfortunately there are still those that are blinded by a view of God of old dogma that they can't see past their own ignorance. Life means so much more than a single celled organism hitching a ride across the cosmos..... Life means creation...the blueprint of existence put in motion and of an order. In this universe this is what we have observed and measured.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW There is also evidence of life throughout the known universe with most of the monomers of life evident in meteorites and the collision of meteorites with planets creates even more complex polymers, which can add up to produce life.
So life may have arrived via meteorites.
Posted by USPharaoh 3 years ago
USPharaoh
No...String Theory is indeed a theory... Just as Superstring theory a SuperSymmetry all have some proven aspects... M Theory....etc .... just depends on which Science god you wish to believe in today.

Evolution does not argue against creation of life.... Evolution requires first that life exists , it does not purport anything about why or when life came about..... just that Life is directed by an inner complexity that it must evolve and grow.... to exist in higher more efficient states. Evolution has no capacity to define nor describe the origin of life itself.

One must keep in mind that the early scientists did their best to define the world with what they had.... The core concept of the earth being the center of the universe was an accepted scientific concept from the early years that was quickly adapted by Christian writers ... and why not... it again was the 'theory of the day'..... which every good scientist knows will be replaced with yet another theory.

It has been theorized that some universe could exist w/o a cause.... it is hard to conceptualize this since all our observations for this universe go against that. Not too widely accepted either since one could postulate that any number of universes of a multieverse theory could suppose that there exists a universe that consumes all other universes and that universe had a beginning.... In quantum theory math.... one tries to avoid runaway equations and such as the endless looping.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
My Friend Sagey,

Sometimes I do have difficulties interpreting the response of one"s definitions relative to one"s reality of terms within their context.

To make it simple, show me the data proving "String Theory!" Higgs-Boson is an important step, but not conclusive.

There is no "misconception of Science" here. It is as simple as this. Whatever your claims are, theory or dreams, I must understand your metrology, and use said metrology, to repeatedly verify your claim, within some statistical range; hence, the scientific method.

If you cannot do that, welcome to philosophy.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
On string theory and the proposed smaller than Higgs-Boson techni-quarks.

http://www.phys.vt.edu...

Though I do agree that String Theory should be called String Hypothesis as much of the Evidence is not yet verified, though scientists have now found ways to verify String Theory.

http://phys.org...

So that is changing and soon it may be considered as a genuine Theory.
Not just a presumptuous Hypothesis being called a Theory of everything.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
It was String Theory that proposed the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle's existence and since it has been discovered as the String Theory predicted, it is evidence for the String Theory, they are now searching for even smaller particles, that the Sting Theory has also predicted.

To be a Scientific Theory it must have evidence, just as the Theory of Evolution has Evidence to make it a Scientific Theory.

Your definition of Theory is only for general, non-scientific Theories.

A Scientific Theory cannot be classed as a Theory without verified Evidence for it.

Thus you have a misconception of Science.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
To my Friend Sagey, prove it!

Where is the empirical data?

Theory, is just philosophy without empirical data.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Ah, according to String Theory, the Cosmos has always existed, and there are likely an infinite number of universes out there, many likely similar, with the same natural laws as our own.
Thus life most likely exists in other universes and thus the Laws Of Nature have always existed, somewhere in the Cosmos as universes come and go like bubbles in a bottle of soda, but the bottle is infinitely large.
Some believe our universe was given birth from one or two previous universes.

There is also evidence that another universe has interfered with our own, so there is evidence for multiple universes, which would mean, the question of creation of the laws of nature is immaterial, in our particular universe these laws are a resultant of the forces that birthed our universe or the Big Bang.
Likely the same in all other universes throughout the infinite Cosmos.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
My Friend Sagey, I understand the argument today, however, in time I feel the argument will shift from the creation/evolution phase to who created the Laws of Nature, God or big-bang.

Just like the earth was once the center of the universe, after photos taken from the moon and before that, the paradigm shifted.

Science, in time, will also shift the paradigm of the formation of life being the product of evolution guided by the Laws of Nature (aka the Constructal Law and advances in DNA metrology). And in saying that, the creation argument will shift to, who created the Laws of Nature?

On the other hand, today"s physicist believe in the existence of parallel universes:

http://www.npr.org...

I see the debate shifting to, perhaps, God exist in one of those universes. So you better be a good boy in this universe.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: Construction Theory does not assume any creator, just that the flow pattern (high potential to low potential) is a universal law and forms universal patterns.
So it cannot be an argument for Creationism, as it is no more evidence of a creator than Gravity.

All creationist arguments are based on fallacies.
Even the statement that if Evolution cannot explain it, and Creationism claims to explain it, then Creationism is to be considered as correct is a Fallacious notion.
Because science can only accept scientific explanations (theories) not theological, subjective notions as explanations.
Pro's use of a fake Doctor pretending to be a scientist (he is only a dentist) questioning Evolution by attacking Abiogenesis (life from chemicals) which has nothing to do with Evolution is Fallacious.

And the hip-hop song about Pascal's fallacious wager is also nonsensical.
Pascal's wager only consider two possible decisions and outcomes, if you believe, you may be saved if god exists and not if god doesn't exist, where the non-believer is not saved either way.
It doesn't consider the majority of atheist's consideration of Don't Give A Damn Either Way or Neutrality.
Salvation is not on the average person's mind, thus Pascal's wager fails to have any influence and becomes a fallacious attempt to persuade people to become believers.
Most people realize that Hell is stupid and proves God is not benevolent, which makes Christianity a lie.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
JasperFrancisShickadancenonprophetTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: N's style can come on a little harsh and he should work a bit on that, personally I know him to be a fair, generous person though. In any case N completely destroyed J's arguments, by systematically refuting each statement. J did not give any proper journal or any scientific evidence, he did not even give the scientific basis Behe whines about constantly. That having been said I am happy to expand my RFD if so asked.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
JasperFrancisShickadancenonprophetTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were based on a cavalcade of fallacies. The first video (musical) was a song based on the Pascal's Wager fallacy, second video was a Dentist pretending to know about biology and evolution, yet he was talking about Abiogenesis (life from chemicals) which has nothing to do with Evolution. So even Pro's sources were fallacious. Con provided strong verifiable arguments which were supported by genuine, non-fallacious sources.