The Instigator
Maria_Magalhaes
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Evolutionism vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,949 times Debate No: 45086
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Maria_Magalhaes

Pro

I'm going to take a position in favor of creationism and against evolutionism.
Con shall take the opposite position.

Evolutionism vs Creationism!

Some of you may be thinking, "still with this "poop"?? Weren't we over with it? Haven't the evolutionist guys proved their point already?"
"Yes!", some of you are saying!; "No!", contests another bunch; "I don't give a poop about this!", admits the guy that came here by mistake.

The rivalry between creationists and evolutionists goes much further than just a matter of theories that try to explain the origins of life and of the human race!
It's a matter of honor! of not giving up on their beliefs! of fighting for the TRUTH! THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH! Without which we don't have any chance, other than just keep living our lives... It's a matter of how far people can go against the beliefs they are trying to defend to prove the other wrong! of how hypocrite people can become! of how long people can fight against each other, without realizing they have much more in common, than what they have keeping them apart!

SCIENCE vs RELIGION
ATHEISTS vs (a relative small portion of) THEISTS (around the world, but surprisingly high in America!)

This war of beliefs has it all!! Human brilliancy! stupidity! hypocrisy! ingenuity! arrogance! ignorance! It stirs with people cores! It drives people to their limits!
Everyone has something to say about it!
Even if it's just to claim that it's worthless and that scientists and religious people should be more concerned in trying to help people in need and to secure sustainable life conditions for the next generations, rather than trying to figure out if our ancestors were a result of a monkey mutation or a God miracle.

Have I captured your interest? Then here are the points I'm expecting to debate:

1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science with the actual knowledge and means it has at its disposal.

2. Creationism shall be taught in schools, as should Religion.

3. Many evolutionists criticize Creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them!

4. Does God exist?

I don't enjoy discussing God with most atheists, but I don't mind to make an effort once in a while... after all, it is God's will.

"Discussing God with an atheist is like discussing colors with a color blind man." - Maria Magalhaes (To spice things a little more ;)

Do you disagree with every single topic I presented? Did you get upset with my claims? Do you think I'm being arrogant and ignorant? Do you want to prove me wrong?

Then you're invited for this debate! :)
You will have 5 rounds to present your arguments, 48 hours, 10 000 characters each.
You're invited to begin arguing in the first round or you may wait for me to express my arguments and reply only in the second round. Feel at home! (since you probably are.)

The topics don't need to be addressed all in the same round. I will just ask my opponent to try to address them in order and in the final round to summarize his position.

Good luck! :)
Romanii

Con

Thank you for your interesting introduction.
Your enthusiasm is appreciated :)

I would just like to point out that I'm not atheist; I'm a theistic Evolutionist.
That shouldn't effect the debate substantially, other than that point 4 will not be discussed.

I think I'd be more "at home" having you present your arguments first :)

I look forward to a great debate!
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Maria_Magalhaes

Pro

I'm happy that my opponent accepted my challenge in such a brief period.
The fact that he's a theistic Evolutionist is appreciated and I have to say I am one myself.
I want to point out though, that I will not go easy on him and that I don't promise that he will leave this debate in "One Piece".

Since we're going to debate only four topics I'm going to focus all my attention to validate Creationism in this first round.

1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science with the actual knowledge and means it has at its disposal.

Creationism is a religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are a creation of God. It is mainly associated with Christian fundamentalists and with the Genesis 1, the opening chapter of the Bible.

In this chapter it is narrated how God created the universe and the mankind in his image in a few days, arguably, 6000 years ago.

Nowadays there are several interpretations of this texts and many variations of Creationism. I won't lose time explaining or justifying them all. I will take the most literal interpretation of the text and explain how irrefutable and logical it is.

With that in mind, I will start to invite my opponent to do a short psychological evaluation of this God that created the world where we live. I will try to assign numbers to specific characteristics.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

This passage from the Genesis is a great start since it has lots of important information about God.

1.The fact that humans were created in God's image tells us a lot already about Him and it will help us deduce other things about Him.

2.We can clearly sense the narcissism and the control issues. He felt the need to create a species to rule over the other and this species was made in His image.

3. The use of "us", "our" is also very intriguing. It may indicate that He wasn't alone at the time. He might be with a friend and to entertain themselves they decided to create this world. It also is possible that He was feeling alone and was just pretending to be with an imaginary friend and then created this world and mankind to seek some entertainment and company. Or He was really delusional and really thought that He wasn't alone. Which is something unlikely, since it's God we're talking about, but in a possible scenario God was alone in the darkness since eternity! It's well known the danger it is for humans to be isolated for long periods of time and deprived of their senses.

Genesis 6
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

This sixth chapter of Genesis narrates how God got angry with men for being mean and decided to kill them all with a flood, only saving Noah. Why Noah? I wonder... I presume the same way as you pick a dog in the dog shelter and leave the others to die. Because God felt a special connection with him. Lets proceed to the psycologic analysis.

2. The narcissism and the control issues demonstrated in the previous passage are shown again.

4. It shows that God has an incorrect idea about himself and that He's not very perspicacious in that regard.
He creates men in his image. Men start to kill and sin against each other. God doesn't identify Himself with this and decides to kill them, without realizing that they are acting exactly according to His own personality.

5. It may indicate
a) that God has a hot temper associated with strong mood swings, which might be caused by his long period of isolation, and that his social skills are quite dysfunctional, which is demonstrated over and over throughout the Bible, through the difficulty that he shows to simply talk and address to people.

b) that the Earth is just like an ant farm to God. He enjoys looking at it once in a while, but then he got bothered and decided to fill it with water. Who hasn't done that? Even if it wasn't with an ant farm, but with an anthill. You know you shouldn't do it and you pity the ants... but it's just stronger than you!

10 Commandments
Exodus 20 1-17:

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

2. The first 5 commandments God gave people to teach them how to live their lives properly, so He doesn't get upset and decides to kill everyone again, are about Him. This completely demonstrates, again, his narcissistic personality and egocentrism.

2. After this 5 commandments He then improvises some moral rules. Respect your parents, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie and... don't be jealous of your neighbor! Which shows some irresponsibility and that what He was really concerned about was to get the proper adoration! Showing again his narcissistic character!

For explaining my next reasoning I really need to paste here part of the third commandment:
"(...)You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

2. Here we have God admitting he's jealous and in a few moments He's telling people not to be jealous. Which demonstrates that the last commandments were something that He really improvised at the last instance and that he doesn't care much about them as long as people venerate and worship Him.

6. God admits He's really resentful and vengeful.

7. He says he's going to be good and to love those that love Him and keep His commandments, half of which were completely made up on the last minute, but sounded reasonable and cool to say. This may be true and God really intends to be nice to those that adore Him or He just wants people to love him and is saying this only to persuade them. Just like you tell your younger brother that you're going to let him play with your computer if he gets you some snacks, but then you never do!

This psychological analyse is already taking too long and I have enough information to prove my case.
Summarizing:
1. God and humans are alike, with very similar behaviors and needs caused by certain life experiences.
2. We have a particularly narcissistic, egocentric God with control issues, which causes are not relevant for the subject in discussion.
3. God might have been with a friend when He decided to create our world, it's possible. Or he might just have been alone playing with an imaginary friend. The third hypothesis of God being delusional is not plausible, because it's God we're talking about!
4. Like most people, God is not very self aware of his personality.
5. I will take b) because the idea of a hot temper God with anxiety symptoms is not very godly like and the idea of the Earth being like an ant farm for God just explains everything perfectly. (*)
6. God is resentful and vengeful.
7. This point is not relevant for the case in discussion.

Why is the ant farm analogy so perfect?
1. It explains why God created the universe. To entertain Himself.
2. It explains why God only intervenes in specific occasions. Because most of the time He's doing something else and when He is observing He doesn't like to interfere with the "natural course" of our Universe, the same way biologist and reporters from National Geographic don't interfere with the habitats they are studying ; and the same way these same reporters try to help an animal once in a while, as does God. He might also interfere just for testing how people react to certain events, the same way that biologists and scientists experiment stuff with animals.
3. Basically all of the God interactions with people, that I'm aware of, can be explained from this point of view.

The Creationism vs Evolutionism

After explaining the God's human behavior, his narcissistic character and His vengeful way to deal with people that don't worship him, I want to purpose my opponent to put himself in God's position.

Imagine that you're this God and you've created this world. In the beginning you've tried to persuade the creatures of this world to worship you for several times. You spoke with them, you rewarded them with some miracles when they did good, you punished them when they didn't obey you. But they are narcissistic like you, so after a while everything is always again as before. They don't care about you and they live their lives, being concern about themselves and ignoring you.
What do you do? You punish them in a way you can be entertained without having to worry much about it in the next future! You change some properties in the universe you have created, so that those that don't believe in you waste their lives trying to figure it out, while entertaining you with their quest. While those that believe and worship you, don't care about it, because they believe in your word that was passed to them through the Bible.
Quite simple right?

Even if you don't completely agree with everything, I still ask you how is it possible to science to disprove this claim? That God did make it seem that the universe is 14 billion years old and that it all started in a Big Bang, just to mock those that didn't believe and worshiped Him.
About the evolving capacities of the living beings. God may have created Life with these properties right at the beginning for the sake of entertainment or He might have introduced it whenever he wanted! Because He's God! And He does whatever He wants to this world.

Try to compare God to a writer. However in our story the characters have more free will... or have they not??
Romanii

Con

I would like to thank Pro for her argument.
I look forward to a productive debate.



THE EVIDENCE BEHIND EVOLUTION (Abridged)

I'm shortening it up a LOT simply because their is SO MUCH evidence for Evolution that I can't possibly list out every instance of it. It is better that I just describe the forms of evidence.

The fossil record clearly shows a gradual progression of change within the phenotypes of species over hundreds of millions of years [1][2][3]. However, there have been accusations that we have no way of knowing if the fossils of two species that LOOK similar actually ARE related, leading us into the next major line of evidence for Evolution: DNA evidence. The analysis of left over DNA in fossils has proven that those species ARE actually related [4][5].



WHY CREATIONISM IS NOT A THEORY

Pro: "Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science with the actual knowledge and means it has at its disposal."

All theories start off as hypotheses. When a hypothesis collects enough evidence, it becomes known as a scientific theory [6].
Currently, Creationism is a hypothesis, which means that it cannot logically be accepted as true over an actual scientific theory.
It is PRO's job to provide enough evidence for Creationism to be considered a theory.
Once Creationism has become a scientific theory, only then can it truly be compared with Evolution.

In her argument, Pro concentrated mostly on showing why the concept of Creationism is theologically sound.

However, theological soundness is not scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence is necessary for moving Creationism from hypothesis status to theory status.

Thus, Pro's primary tasks in this debate should be showing evidence for Creationism and (possibly) attacking the theory of Evolution.


I wish my opponent good luck in the next round :D


SOURCES
[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2] http://www.agiweb.org...
[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
[4] http://eveloce.scienceblog.com...
[5] http://humanorigins.si.edu...
[6] http://www.livescience.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Maria_Magalhaes

Pro

The origin of the universe and the life itself was until very recently a theological subject. With the evolution of human knowledge and technology, scientists started to study it in their field. However, as I tried to show, theology still may very easily swallow science in this subject.
I've never tried to claim Creationism as a scientific theory and that doesn't make it any less reasonable, possible or "theoretical".
As there are scientific theories, there are philosophical theories as valid or more than the scientific ones. They just approach different questions or the same questions from different perspectives.
In this last scenario is possible that one may even try to disprove the other.
For example, if I claimed that God didn't create life with the capacity of evolving, science could try to disprove this claim. Or if science claimed that organisms evolve only through random mutations, philosophy may try to disprove this too, based, for instances, on the ludicrous chance of that to happen.

However, I claimed that God created the Universe 6000 years ago and after a while he decided to change some of its characteristics, so it seemed that it all started a few billion years back in an explosion. You can't approach this with science anymore. All the scientific proofs you present in favor of the Bing Bang and Evolution theory will just fall into the theological theory I presented. What you can do is try to disprove it from a theological perspective.
Yet, what I wrote was: "Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science (...)"

Philosophical theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Theory and Theology:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org...

I didn't want to compare Creationism with Evolution. I just wanted to show how fragile evolution is with a theological approach and how science can't disprove Creationism. However, I can use every single scientific evidence there is, in favor and "con" Evolution, to support my theory.

All the proofs pro Evolution support God's intention to create the illusion of Evolution and an origin in a distant past.
All the proofs "con" Evolution, like the lack of transitional fossils and the unreliability of random mutations being able to produce such complex organisms, support that God didn't think or care much about it when he made the changes to create the illusion; or that God didn't want to create a perfect puzzle with all the pieces, so scientists couldn't claim it as truth and continue to waste their lives studying it;

2. Creationism shall be taught in schools, as should Religion.

Creationism and Evolution are two possible theories to explain the origin of life. Even if the scientific nature of Creationism is arguable, is undeniable that it is a plausible and world wide accepted theory. There may be some unreasonable variations of Creationism, but the possibility of a creator God is irrefutable.

I think only in America Creationism is presented as a scientific theory. In my country it is taught as a valid theological theory, that plays in a different plan than science.

Teaching different theories to explain the same event is also very important. It shows children that the human knowledge and science are not absolute and are far from discovering all the mysteries of the universe. It gives them the opportunity to look at this with a much more opened mind and it also teaches them the relativity of truth.

In my experience what disappointed me, wasn't the 10 minutes we lost with Creationism, but how evolution was presented as a finished theory. However, that's something for the third topic.

Why should Religion also be taught in school?

The benefits of learning several religions in school are overwhelming. Only by teaching the existence of a few religions from a general view, we widen our children views, options and understandings immensely.
Usually people are confined to their parents religion, which often is the single prominent religion in their society, that they learn through a very partial view. Like my opponent, who has Indian parents and follows Sikhism, an Indian religion, probably like his parents.

Teaching several religions through an impartial and rational scholar perspective give children a much wider range of options, while helping them to better understand things about humankind and their and the others' cultures.

It's obviously impossible to offer a complete coverage over every religion at a deep level, but that's never the goal of school. It just tries to give the students enough tools and information, so they can make well grounded decisions, like deepening their knowledge in one or other subject they enjoyed and with which they identified themselves more.

In my country it's not an obligatory subject, but it's optional.
From my personal experience I only have to be thankful for it. Everyone on my class was interested and wanted to learn, which promoted great debates and helped me a lot. We had a Muslim that helped us to better understand his religion and culture, while another one of my friends, who was completely into Buddhism, ended up to go to Tibet in a gap year.

Keeping religion out of school just promotes ignorance and incomprehension.

Religion takes a major role in human's history, culture, morals, beliefs, understanding of the world, etc.
Religion has a place in every society and in every single one of us.
Religion may help us understand who we are and how to deal with our life and with our problems.
Religion may help us understand our ancestors, relating ourselves with them and learning with them.
Religion teaches us the importance of our spirituality and how to work it.
Religion may help us understand and respect each other.
Religion may teach us how to approach other cultures problems and morals.
etc.

It's irrefutable the importance that religion has to the humankind and it's a shame that some secular societies, due to ignorance/ fear/vengeance, are trying to kick it to a second plan and leave it out of schools.

3. Many evolutionists criticize Creationists claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them!

History summary:

In Europe, after the decline of the "democratic" Greek heydays, education and science started to be restrained again by the dictatorships that came to replace it. It's much easier to impose these kind of regimes in bad informed and educated societies, therefore the access to knowledge was very limited, reaching its most extreme point during the middle ages.
During this period the monarchies of Europe allied themselves to the Catholic Church and suppressed and manipulated their people through religious dogmas and threats, persecuting and executing scientists and other scholars that tried to disprove their claims, which created a deep grudge against the Catholic Church inside the scientific community.
However all the educated scientists could very well separate Christianity and Religion from what the men inside the Catholic Church were trying to impose and all of them remained religious or theistic (probably with some exceptions...)

Then the black death happened and certain conditions were created to begin a new Era, which started as a movement to recover the ideologies from the Greek and Roman prosperous ages in Italy. The Renaissance Period, where God started to lose His position in the center of man's attention, being replaced by the man himself. Science started to gain power again and tension was raised between scholars and the Catholic Church, leading to the creation of new Protestant Churches.

The increasingly fast advancement of science, that started in this period, culminated in the Industrial Revolution in England, that wasn't associated to the Catholic Church anymore and which scientific community was able to breath freely.
The English were on the top of the world, with the biggest and strongest empire, supported by the strongest industry.
New companies were being created every day and the ones that couldn't follow the technological advancements were left behind.
It was in this context that Darwinism appeared, a theory based on the survival of the fittest that disclaimed the word from the sacred Book of God. A theory that made possible for man to answer the questions that only God had access to.

This originated a strong movement inside the English bourgeoisie, composed by the most powerful and rich man in the world. They ingenuously realized that they didn't need God anymore, they had conquered the world and disproved God's word and God itself. This movement was quite well accepted by the science community around Europe, because it gave them support to fight against the oppressive Church, disclaiming the truthfulness of the word of God.

So, being very far from being a finished theory, Darwinism spread as an irrefutable theory inside the scientific community, because it gave Science the opportunity to pass from a position of submission to a position of open war against the oppressive Church.
The Church naturally didn't take this well and instead of trying be reasonable and taking it to their theological field, started to fight science with science, which ended in defeats, one after another.

However, being used as a weapon has led the evolution theory to be always looked with special careful inside of the scientific community. While almost all scientific theories are usually bombed with questions and refutations, the evolution theory was always treated almost as irrefutable and as finished. Since part of the community was afraid that if it was presented as incomplete, it would raise to many doubts and it might tilt the balance to the religious side again.

I don't have more characters left, I will conclude my reasoning in the next round.
Good luck!
Romanii

Con

I thank Pro for her argument.


SCIENCE VS. PHILOSOPHY

"I've never tried to claim Creationism as a scientific theory and that doesn't make it any less reasonable, possible or 'theoretical'."

"As there are scientific theories, there are philosophical theories as valid or more than the scientific ones. They just approach different questions or the same questions from different perspectives."

The problem is, that simply showing that an idea makes sense doesn't make it true.
That is Ad Ignorantium (i.e. saying that something is true because we can't prove it to be false)

Also, Evolution is perfectly logical as well, leading us into the next section.




SUPPOSED "FLAWS" IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

"All the proofs pro Evolution support God's intention to create the illusion of Evolution and an origin in a distant past."

As I pointed out last round, the combination of fossil evidence and DNA evidence proves Evolution almost to the point of certainty.

"the lack of transitional fossils"

There are overwhelming amounts of transitional fossils [1].

"and the unreliability of random mutations being able to produce such complex organisms,"

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not [2].
With every beneficial mutation, natural selection evolves the population as a whole just a little bit.
Over millions of years, evolution can change a population into a totally new species.
Over hundreds of millions of years, those species can begin to look radically different from each other.

"I just wanted to show how fragile evolution is with a theological approach and how science can't disprove Creationism."

However, evolution doesn't NEED to be theologically sound because it can function without the presence of a God.
If we were talking about theistic evolution, then we could argue over that subject, but when considering naturalistic evolution, theological soundness is irrelevant.

Thus, having refuted all of Pro's contentions, Evolution has been proven to be logically valid.

In conclusion, if we have two logical theories, and only one of them is supported by evidence, we must accept that one over the other, since the baseless has no advantage over the evidenced.

Pro needs to provide some sort of empirical evidence for Creationism beyond showing its logical validity.




CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS

"Creationism and Evolution are two possible theories to explain the origin of life. Even if the scientific nature of Creationism is arguable"

Yes. They are both logically valid.
But only one is proven. The other is not.
Pro claims that the scientific nature of Creationism is arguable, but she, so far, has NOT provided any such arguments so far. I strongly urge her to do so next round.

"It shows children that the human knowledge and science are not absolute and are far from discovering all the mysteries of the universe."

It is true that there is no such thing as definitive proof in science.
However, this does not mean that unproven conjectures can compete with scientific theories.
In most cases, students ARE taught competing theories, but only when both have substantial amounts of evidence.

My opponent has also devoted a large chunk of her argument to showing why information about religion should be taught in school, but this is unnecessary because 1) in many places, such courses are already offered as electives, and 2) the resolution of the debate relates to specifically Biblical Creationism; not religion in general.

"Many evolutionists criticize Creationists claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them!"

My opponent has not really done much to show where the "flaws" in the theory of evolution lie. I encourage her to do so next round, in addition to her evidence for Creationism.




HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

Pro has written a long, and rather well-crafted essay about the development of Darwinism
Her major premise is that scientists are especially defensive of the supposedly weak theory of Evolution simply because it is the major thing which separates science from religion.

While this is probably true to an extent, in the sense that scientists are rather overprotective of it, Evolution really is very well-evidenced, and Pro has not really given any organized arguments against it.
Again, I strongly urge Pro to do so next round.




CONCLUSION

Pro still must show empirical evidence of Creationism for it to be able to compete with Evolution.
Pro still must show why Evolution is a "flawed theory".


SOURCES:
[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Maria_Magalhaes

Pro

I believe that my opponent is having some difficulties understanding the concepts we are discussing.
I will try to explain them to him, before proceeding with the reasoning of the last round.

THEORY:
"Theory is a SYSTEM OF IDEAS intended to EXPLAIN something, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on)."

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

I don't know what my opponent thinks a theory is, but a theory is just a theory. A theory isn't suppose to prove something to be true, but to provide a possible explanation for a certain observation.

I want to invite him to do 2 simple simulations:

1.There is this room. You know there was an animal there during the night and you want to find out which. You enter the room and you find some poop, pee and hair. You take it to the lab and you discover it all belongs to a black Labrador. You conclude by the evidences you found that there was a black Labrador in the room.
Then I show you the footage that was taken during the night. From 10pm-11pm you see a monkey playing around, then the staff takes the monkey and puts there a horse for half an hour and thereafter they leave a parrot in the room for a couple of hours. In the end they take the parrot, they completely clean the room and they leave the evidences you found.

It was impossible for you to figure that out, you only had access to the evidences that were left and concluded based on that, that there was a dog. But the fact that all the evidences pointed that way doesn't make it true, does it?

2. There is another room. The room is full with Rubik's cubes, a few dozens are already solved and the rest is not, and there is a monkey with one in its hand trying to solve it. After a while he manages to do it. What do you conclude? That if it managed to solve this one, he also solved the others?

All the evidences point that it is possible, but I hope you've learned from the first example and you don't conclude that's the only possibility. It is also possible that the staff might had put some of them there just to mix the things up, for example.

I show you the footage. During the night two kids, without the knowing or permission of the staff, enter the room with the monkey and solve all the Rubik's cubes. After that the monkey starts playing with the Cubes and mix part of them again. When you saw the monkey in the next morning he was playing with one of these cubes and by pure luck, or not, he managed to solve it.

You can't base scientific theories on just ideas or nonexistent evidences, that's something more suitable for the philosophical field.
However basing scientific theories on evidences doesn't make them more infallible or true either. You can't state that all the other explanations are false or irrelevant because there are not as well grounded as yours. You're just being "close minded and your faith is evading your reasoning to evaluate evidence" or the absence of it.

1.Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science.

I think and hope that my opponent has already accepted that Creationism is a valid theory. However he's still trying to claim that it is not a valid scientific theory, which was something that I had clearly implied since the beginning, when I wrote that it couldn't be refuted by science. I don't understand why he has ever thought that I would try to claim it as a scientific theory.

2. Creationism shall be taught in schools.
My opponent still disagrees, but I believe that's mainly because he doesn't understand that I'm not purposing it to be taught as a competitor to Evolution in the scientific field, as I've already tried to explain several times.

What I'm defending is that Creationism shall be taught as a theological theory, that is based on the bible and that was considered as the only truth during many years. It shall be used to teach how science wasn't always able to study the origin of the universe and the origin of life and how people tried to approach this matters through religion. However, with the evolution of the human knowledge, scientists managed to start studying this subject on their field and to present a valid scientific explanation that doesn't necessary requires a God intervention. Nevertheless, this also doesn't disprove the possibility of a creator God, though for the science knowledge to keep advancing it's not productive to rely on this kind of religious dogmas, as it isn't productive to rely on theories based on pure luck, which only God would make plausible; and this takes me to the third topic.

3. In the previous round I claimed that Evolution was not reliable because of its improbability and randomness, which was answered by the following response:

"Mutations are random, but natural selection is not [2].
With every beneficial mutation, natural selection evolves the population as a whole just a little bit.
Over millions of years, evolution can change a population into a totally new species.
Over hundreds of millions of years, those species can begin to look radically different from each other."

If the mechanisms of adaptation and evolution of the living beings were only this two, eternity wouldn't be enough to make it plausible, since the species would take too long to adapt to any type of environmental change, how my opponent wrote, "Over millions of years (...) Over hundreds of millions of years". However, these are the mechanisms that most of the people that defend evolution are aware of and rely on to base their conviction.
This ignorant, dogmatic, hypocrite belief is not science, but is basically what we learn in school about evolution and are expected to be satisfied with it.

(I also would want to ask my opponent how EVERY beneficial mutation makes the population evolve as a whole? Are beneficial mutations coded with ultra dominant genes?)

When I learned evolution in school, most of us were completely aware of it, it never was a question if the animals could evolve or not, it was a matter of how?
We were taught about the genetic diversity, provided by sexual reproduction and genetic recombination, minor random mutations, genetic drift and genetic hitchhiking, which associated to the natural selection allowed small changes during the years that with time would create completely different species. This allied to more random mutations, but with remarkable alterations in the phenotype of the organisms, allowed them to adapt and evolve.

At least 10 children in my class of ninth graders didn't buy it, a bunch of kids learning about it for the first time weren't satisfied with the lame answer that was provided and knew there was more to it than just that. Were they right? Absolutely.
There were a bunch of questions made, to most of which my teacher didn't know how to answer, some of them were theories made up on the moment, here are two that I remember:

http://www.boredpanda.com...

Looking at some of the camouflages that exist in the animal kingdom, it easily comes to mind, what if there are transfers of DNA between different species? It would certainly help to explain such perfect camouflages and if animals from different species can trade DNA that would enable them to share important survival characteristics with each other, too.

Horizontal gene transfer:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It has already been proven in microorganisms, still being studied the use it may have to more complex systems.

Other question was if the number of mutations is increased by the level of stress of the animal? It would make all the sense to increase the number of mutations in periods when the populations pass through more difficult times.

Stress-directed adaptive mutations and evolution:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Still in study.

Other than these, there are a lot of other theories in study trying to cover the gaps of the "finished" theory of evolution, in macro and microsystems, genetics, epigenetics, etc.

Evolution: A View from the 21st Century by James A. Shapiro
http://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikispaces.com...

Evolutionary Biology for the 21st Century
http://www.plosbiology.org...

Now, finally resuming my reasoning from the last round.
By using evolution as a weapon, apparently part of the scientific community forgot that a scientific theory is supposed to provide an explanation for an observation, not just to prove the observation. Instead of focusing in explaining how the evolution actually works, part of the converted to evolution only focused in proving evolution over creationism, that doesn't even belong to the same field, basing their claims in a theory with so many gaps, that only a holy intervention would make it possible.
The creationists naturally used this as a weakness against them. Then these "evolutionists", instead of admitting that there was still much to explain in regard of the mechanisms of adaptation, they presented claims like: "If it didn't happen this way we wouldn't be here thinking about it."; or "There are a infinite number of universes, in one of them it happened and here we are.". Thus taking positions based on chance and dogmatic assumptions, completely out of the scientific field. Since a scientific theory is suppose to be rigorous and able to be empirically disproved. Instead of trying to understand the theory they were trying to defend so blindly and promoting its advancement, they only cared to disprove a theological theory, which is completely useless and counter-productive for science.
The only way to make science evolve, is fighting it against itself.
However most people don't have the knowledge to do it, so they waste their time trying to prove evolution over and over again. Which is useless, because of the subjectivity and relativity of our reality.

I ran out of characters again.
To be continued... ;)
Romanii

Con


OCCAM'S RAZOR

Let's start by introducing the principle known Occam's Razor, which states that when presented with two valid explanations for an occurrence, we must accept the one with the least assumptions [1].
This is a law of logic and cannot be denied.

Now, Pro argues through analogies, that just because the evidence we have proves a certain theory, it does not mean that we can assume the theory to be true, since the evidence could be manufactured.

However, the idea that all evidence was manufactured is a HUGE assumption!
Evolution has MUCH less assumption involved, as it follows exactly what the evidence suggests.

Thus, by Occam's Razor, we must accept Evolution as the better explanation for the development of life on Earth.




"THEOLOGICAL THEORIES"

Pro also seems to think that she doesn't need to present scientific evidence for Creationism, simply because Creationism isn't scientific in nature. According to her, it is a "theological theory".

However, theological theories are for theology class, not science class, which is where Creationists want their ideology to be taught.

Pro claims that the development of life on Earth is better explained by theology/philosophy rather than science, however, Pro provides NO basis for this assertion, and so it is invalid.




PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION

"the gaps of the 'finished' theory of evolution, in macro and microsystems, genetics, epigenetics, etc."

Is the continual search for knowledge something bad?
It is a hell lot better than ignoring evidence and using logical fallacy to believe in a 4000 year old book!

"they waste their time trying to prove evolution over and over again. Which is useless, because of the subjectivity and relativity of our reality."

That "subjectivity and relativity" can just as easily apply to Creationism.

"At least 10 children in my class of ninth graders didn't buy it, a bunch of kids learning about it for the first time weren't satisfied with the lame answer that was provided and knew there was more to it than just that. Were they right? Absolutely."

And do the opinions of random kids matter? Absolutely NOT.
Just because the explanation doesn't feel "fulfilling" does not matter at all.

"This ignorant, dogmatic, hypocrite belief is not science, but is basically what we learn in school about evolution and are expected to be satisfied with it."

It was proven THOROUGHLY before making its way into schools.
Pro hasn't done anything to disprove Evolution other than state her own opinion and use logical fallacy.




CONCLUSION

-- According to Occam's Razor, Evolution is more logically valid than Creationism.
-- Pro's distinction of the two into separate schools of thought ensures that Creationism cannot be taught in science classes
-- There are no problems with theory of Evolution aside from Pro's own personal dislike for it.
-- Science is and always will be a work in progress, but that only adds to its validity as an accurate means of searching for truth.

Again, I STRONGLY urge Pro to abandon her empty arguments from "logic" and and use EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.



SOURCE
[1] http://math.ucr.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
Maria_Magalhaes

Pro

Before summarizing and conclude the debate, I will try to address my opponent"s "counterarguments".

First of all, it appears that my opponent still thinks that I am trying to prove creationism over evolution as a better theory, so I will ask my opponent to read everything from the beginning more carefully, because he isn"t helping himself.

I will try to clarify.

I wrote that I would take a position in favor of creationism to debate the following topics:

1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science.

2. Creationism shall be taught in schools.

3. Many evolutionists criticize creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them!

4. Does God exist? (which was ignored, because of my opponent"s theistic beliefs.)

I"ve never wrote that Creationism is a better, "truer" or more valid theory than Evolutionism and that I intended to prove it over evolution.

OCCAM'S RAZOR

Occam"s razor approach is a valid reasoning and very important to the scientific field, where the theories are based in physical evidences. Again, if I was trying to validate creationism over evolution as a scientific theory, it would be a good argument, but I am NOT.

What I wanted to point out with the analogies is that even science may be fallible and even when something appears obvious and clear, it may not be. I wanted to explain how it is important to know how to evaluate the absence of physical evidences and how you can't state that all the other explanations are false or irrelevant because there are not as well grounded as yours.

"THEOLOGICAL THEORIES"

Theological theories are for theology classes, when they don"t have a major role in the history of the science subject that is being taught.

When you learn atoms in chemistry, you learn almost every theory, since ancient Greece, which were purposed to represent it, despite the fact that they have already been disregarded by the scientific community. However, it is important to know how science and the human knowledge evolved.

In this case, it happens that the previous most predominant theory was from the theological field.

Nevertheless, you didn't try to counter any of my arguments and you completely forged my position in regard to the subject. As I wrote before, I've never claimed that creationism was a better theory to explain the development of Life on Earth and that it should be taught instead of evolutionism. I really advise you to read my arguments more carefully, instead of making false accusations.

PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION

The topic is not "Problems with evolution", but rather, Problems with some Evolutionists.

However, my opponent completely failed to understand what we are debating and instead of trying to counter my arguments, he limited himself to prove my case, how some evolutionists can be closed minded and unable to evaluate the evidences... that I"m throwing at him since the beginning.

He took my arguments out of the context and completely forged them. I don"t know if he has done it on purpose and consciously or if it is just the blindness that I"m criticizing since the start, that doesn"t let him see what I"m trying to demonstrate since my introduction to this debate.

Even so, I'm going to explain my opponent the meaning of the arguments that he didn't understand.

"Is the continual search for knowledge something bad?"

No! It is what science is all about!! It is what science exists for!
What I was criticizing is the fact that the evolution theory is taught as a finished theory and the position that many evolutionists take in this regard.
The Evolution theory should be taught as a theory in progress, that is still being studied and developed.
The concept of teaching it as "finished" is completely against the scientific model! If you tell children that it is finished, they won't even consider to try to research more about it, it won't seduce students to choose it as an area of study, because they were taught that there is nothing more to discover.

I really advise you to reread what I've wrote in all the previous rounds.

"And do the opinions of random kids matter?"

You completely took this out of context again. Is it because you didn't know how to answer it? Or you didn't really understand?

What I wanted to say is that even a bunch of kids felt that there was more to the evolution mechanisms of adaption, that what they were taught. This left them to make really pertinent questions, some of which are still being studied, as I've written. However, the teacher just disregarded those questions, because the theory was already "finished" and it didn't include those mechanisms.

My opponent's conclusions are also irrelevant, because they are all about proving evolution over creationism.
I want to point out only this statement that he made, "There are no problems with theory of Evolution aside from Pro's own personal dislike for it.".

There's nothing right with this sentence.
As I've tried to explain several times in the last round, the theory of Evolution is still being developed and still has lots of gaps. Therefore you can't say it doesn't have problems, because it does. However, that's not a bad thing, unless you ignore them!
In regard to the last accusation, I'm working in AppEEL since it was founded and I've already produced several thesis in this field. Evolutionism has been my life in the last one and a half years. I really suggest my opponent to reevaluate all the debate and I invite him to know more about this project.

http://appeel.fc.ul.pt...

Conclusion

1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science.
It's a valid statement and it also proves that Creationism can't be consider a scientific theory.
God may have a place in us and in our Universe, but for science to keep evolving, God can't be considered part of the solution.

2. Creationism shall be taught in schools.
I think it should be taught for several reasons, even if it's just for its historical role in the subject.
But again, my opponent didn't present any counters to my arguments. He limited himself to try to disprove it as a competitor to evolution, when I clearly wrote that that wasn't my intention.

3. Many evolutionists criticize creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them!

My opponent failed to present any arguments to refute this statement, while helping me to confirm how he is one of them.

All the irony expressed in the introduction to this debate, the ridiculous and offensive way as I presented Creationism as a valid theory, the criticism with which I approached evolutionists that didn't take a scientific stand to defend a scientific theory, the fact that I admitted to be an theistic evolutionist as my opponent ... None of this made my opponent realize that I'm completely in favor of science and evolution. He was so blinded by the title "Evolutionism vs Creationism", that he completely failed to understand that it is his stand that I've been mocking and complaining since the start.

It is pointless to fight creationism vs evolutionism in the scientific field. Even if there's a God, "He" needs to be disregarded by science, so it may continue to evolve.

Trying to prove evolution over and over again is pointless. The capacity to the living beings to evolve is a scientific observation, we don't need to prove the observation anymore. What we need to do is to explain how this evolution happens and which are the mechanisms behind it. But for that, we have to admit that we still aren't aware of all of them and there are still many questions to be made and to be answered in the evolution field of science.

Taking dogmatic positions to defend a scientific theory, besides being a show of ignorance and hypocrisy, it's not productive for science. As I wrote before, claiming statements as "If it didn't happen this way we wouldn't be here thinking about it.", is ludicrous.

Presenting a theory as finished, when it clearly is not, is also against the scientific principles. If the goal is knowing more and explaining the phenomenons of our Universe, we can't state that we already know the answer. Because if we do, the seek for more knowledge will cease.

However, the scientific field is not absolute.
This was another important point that I wanted to make clear.
Naturally, for the sake of science we have to consider the observations as valid and base our theories on those observations and experiments. But it is also important to keep our philosophical mind in check and to consider the absence of evidences, which may lead to other very valid possibilities and prevent us to make false assumptions.

From a life perspective, science is very far from being able to answer to all our questions and problems. It is obsolete to rely only on science to live our lives, because we won't never be satisfied. We will always feel that is something missing...
Romanii

Con

My opponent appears to have created quite the conundrum...


STRAW MEN

There seems to have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.
My opponent claims that she isn't trying to assert Creationism as BETTER than Evolution, but that she is asserting Creationism as EQUAL to Evolution.

Pro accuses me of setting up straw men, but throughout this entire debate, she has been asserting that Creationism is a better theory than Evolution philosophically speaking:

" I just wanted to show how fragile evolution is with a theological approach "

"there are philosophical theories as valid or more than the scientific ones"

"Evolutionism vs Creationism" (title of debate is structured in a way that implies a competition between the two ideologies)

"a bunch of kids learning about [Evolution] for the first time weren't satisfied with the lame answer that was provided and knew there was more to it than just that. Were they right? Absolutely."

" if science claimed that organisms evolve only through random mutations, philosophy may try to disprove this too, based, for instances, on the ludicrous chance of that to happen."

All of the above quotes show that it is not me misrepresenting Pro's argument, but Pro that is either consciously or unconsciously changing her debating approach.



REBUTTALS

"The Evolution theory should be taught as a theory in progress, that is still being studied and developed."

It is... that' s how all science is taught.

"When you learn atoms in chemistry, you learn almost every theory, since ancient Greece, which were purposed to represent it, despite the fact that they have already been disregarded by the scientific community."

This analogy seems to prove my side more than it does Pro's...
By comparing Creationism to the false, outdated atomic model of Democritus, Pro implies that Creationism is similarly outdated and false.

" I'm completely in favor of science and evolution. He [Con] was so blinded by the title "Evolutionism vs Creationism", that he completely failed to understand that it is his stand that I've been mocking and complaining since the start."

I'm not sure what kind of prank my opponent is trying to pull here.
This entire debate she's been praising the virtues of philosophy/theology and criticizing science, and now she's suddenly a scientist?

Pro also started to go off on a tangent about on a tangent about how "the scientific field is not absolute" and how "science is very far from being able to answer to all our questions and problems", but...
1) all qualified scientists already know that
2) none of that implies that we should turn to unsubstantiated philosophy in order to fill in the gaps of a field which is clearly in the realm of science.



CONCLUSION

"My opponent's conclusions are also irrelevant, because they are all about proving evolution over creationism."

That was the entire point of the debate, until Pro changed the resolution last round...

She went from supporting Creationism, to differentiating them into two totally unrelated fields, to calling them both equally valid theories, to saying that she's is full support of Evolution.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anonymiss 3 years ago
anonymiss
@ romanii

Your welcome. Although I may hold to my opposing view in relation to yours on creationism, I enjoy hearing both sides and find it very frustrating and irritating when people of a foolish nature have no respect for the purpose of intelligent debate. Perhaps at a future date we can indulge in a actual debate and discussion on this topic.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@anonymiss:
Thank you :)
You have earned my eternal respect.
Posted by anonymiss 3 years ago
anonymiss
In what intelligent sense could one consider this clever? If your internship coordinator looks at this with anything less than amazement at how pointless and lacking you are in the understanding of the purpose of debate forum and conduct then sadly they should find a new job. For one to argue on a platform of something they not only do not believe but obviously know nothing about is not clever but shows blatant stupidity and closed mindedness. Arguing something among people who believe as you do, to prove them correct by making incoherent arguments against it is ridiculous and a pathetic slap in the face of the entire system of debate v.s. petty arguments. Please keep your lack luster petty mockery of intelligent debate to facebook memes not forums dedicated to actual debate between aware and interested participants. To those interested in an actual debate on this topic I suggest checking out the ' creation on trial' debate.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@Defro:

This is not a good satire at all. Satire always has clear signs that it is a joke, either through over exaggeration of certain points or through blatant logical fallacy.

Maria was presenting herself as a stereotypical airhead creationist throughout the entire debate. It is very common for some Creationists to use such fallacious and evasive arguments, so there was no way for me to see that she is "secretly" a evolutionist.

She needs trolling lessons from Imabench.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Maria
So this was all a ruse?
Very impressive. I was very convinced I knew where you stood concerning your beliefs.
This is such good use of satire, I'd swear you are an English major in college.
Although I dont think it was very nice to use Romanii like that.

@Romanii
That's exactly what Maria is saying! This whole debate was a trick! Maria wanted to point out that Creationism, while valid, is not a scientific theory. It was very clever. Imagine that all her arguments had a sarcastic tone to it.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Still not sure what the hell you were trying to accomplish.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
"While debating the 4 topics I purposed and which my opponent completely failed to counter, mainly because of his blindness against Creationism."

Your three "arguments" were

"1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science"

We also can't disprove the existence of unicorns with science. Does that make the existence of Unicorns a valid theory? Absolutely not.

2. Creationism shall be taught in schools, as should Religion.

Creationism, as you said, is not a scientific theory, so it DOES NOT BELONG IN SCIENCE CLASSES.
If you want it to be taught as a primitive, outdated, and absolutely false theory, then fine, but I don't think you do.

3. Many evolutionists criticize Creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them!

Back to the unicorn analogy, are we being closed minded for being almost sure that unicorns don't exist? NO. It is completely reasonable to dismiss Creationism just like that because not only is it unsupported, but there is a much better theory explaining the same thing.

Just because the evidence MIGHT be manufactured is no reason to accept random wild guesses in its place as "equally valid".

I wasn't setting up strawmen. You had an inconsistent position in the debate.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@Maria:

Apology not accepted.

I don't get where you're coming from.

CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

What do you not understand about that?
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 3 years ago
Maria_Magalhaes
I also want to apologize to Romanii for using him, but he volunteered :p
However I have to advice him again to avoid taking others citations and state them out of context.
I've warned you in the last round, but you did it again in the end.
It's just ugly and it's just better to avoid it.

Thank you for the time!
Wishes of luck and love!
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 3 years ago
Maria_Magalhaes
I'm an "evolutionist" and I created this debate to prove the case I presented in the introduction.
How people can be blind by their beliefs, beliefs they don't completely understand, and how they can fight with such a grudge against someone that is on their side.
While debating the 4 topics I purposed and which my opponent completely failed to counter, mainly because of his blindness against Creationism.

I'm really glad you're well informed. Defro

The goal was never fight one theory against the other. I've only referred the two main flaws appointed to evolution to confirm how less my opponent knew about it and to help me make my point.

I also just wanted to show how creationism, even if its the most retarded version of it, can be consider to be a valid theory and can't be disprove my science, but I informed my opponent at a certain point that there are many versions of Creationism.

Other thing that I wanted to point out is that creationism cannot be consider a scientific theory, even if it's valid. Because, as I explained, to science to keep evolving God cannot make part of the solution.

Tomorrow I'm going to present this to my internship coordinator.
I just hope he enjoys it as much as I did :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Maria_MagalhaesRomaniiTied
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 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 read this debate (or ramblings of a troll) and have decided that Pro did not meet the burden of proof for the proposition i.e Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science. Hence argument points to Con. Pros arguments are based on those ludicrous unscientific positions, like what is truth or is this real. If this is your position, fine but don't say its scientific, as it is not. Conduct goes to Con, as trolling is not amusing. Sources go to Con as I think these resources were more insightful. S&G is tied.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
Maria_MagalhaesRomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd love to give points to Pro just for using the word "poop" throughput this debate. Poop is a fun word to say. However, I have to give the debate to Con for the following reasons: 1. Which version of creationism does Pro want taught in public school? Chinese, Norse, Sumerian, or...? 2. If Pro wants the Judeo-Christian aversion taught, she should understand that the stories within this creation epic are based on much older stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh. 3. Creationism is not scientific because it is not testable, repeatable, observable, or falsifiable. In order for something to be a scientific theory, it needs to meet these requirements. Creationism doesn't; evolutionary biology does. Poop.