The Instigator
crushboy79
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

God created the earth

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 4 votes the winner is...
AlternativeDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 60766
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

crushboy79

Pro

The proof that backs evolution is horrible. The very beginning is flawed. For example, the theory of evolution, states that life can only come from life. Yet, where did it all start?

The con must explain why evolution's beginning is valid.

May the best man win.
AlternativeDavid

Con

I'm happy to have the opportunity to debate this.

"The theory of evolution, states that life can only come from life."

I would like to see Pro's proof that the theory of evolution states that only life can come from life. Obviously life started somewhere. I will now explain the origin of the evolutionary process.

The five steps I will present come from [1], which has pictures in case that will be easier for anybody to wrap their head around. I will attempt to explain this a little more simply than Berkeley does.

Also, I will not explain how certain things work, like RNA/DNA having genetic information because somebody that is able to claim that "the proof that backs evolution is horrible" must know a lot about it.

1) Simple organic molecules were formed.

Simple organic molecules known as nucleotides formed. Nucleotides are composed of carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, and phosphorus atoms. These nucleotides are not life. They are simply organic molecules that will serve as the building block of life. Experiments suggest that these molecules may have been synthesized in the atmosphere, and then would have rained down onto the ground and water. DNA/RNA, genetic materials for all life, are just long chains of nucleotides.


2) Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.

The act of reproduction most likely began in the form of an RNA self-replicator. The RNA would make copies of itself. After copying itself, the RNA would form chains of nucleotides. This is where natural selection comes in. The nucleotides that did not replicate as well, and were not able to replicate as quickly, became less and less common compared to the ones that successfully replicated. This would go on until-by complete accident-a better kind of replication could take place, and then that one would take over as the more common one. This went on until a stable/efficient replicating system eventually evolved.

3) Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.

"The evolution of a membrane surrounding the genetic material provided two huge advantages: the products of the genetic material could be kept close by and the internal environment of this proto-cell could be different than the external environment." The molecules that were protected by the membrane obviously out-competed their membrane-less counterparts. This membrane advancement resulted in what our current bacterium use.

4) Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.

I'm not smart enough to break this down so here's what Berkeley says about step four.

"Up until this point, life had probably relied on RNA for most jobs. But everything changed when some cell or group of cells evolved to use different types of molecules for different functions: DNA (which is more stable than RNA) became the genetic material, proteins (which are often more efficient promoters of chemical reactions than RNA) became responsible for basic metabolic reactions in the cell, and RNA was demoted to the role of messenger, carrying information from the DNA to protein-building centers in the cell. Cells incorporating these innovations would have easily out-competed 'old-fashioned' cells with RNA-based metabolisms, hailing the end of the RNA world."


5) Multicellularity evolved.

Potentially as early as 2 billion years ago, some cells stopped going their separate ways after replicating, and began to have specialized functions. This created the world's first multicelular organisms. Over billions of years, natural selection made each organism more and more complex, while becoming better and better at surviving. Fast forward 2 billion years and here we are. Coexisting with life forms that evolved differently than we did. Every living thing can trace it's family history back billions of years. I think that's pretty awesome.


[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
crushboy79

Pro

But all things have to be created.And yes they are life to refute your 1st argument. And I was told by an evolutionist that life can only come from life. So who created the atmosphere? Where did it come from? Nowhere? Great statement. So now tell me where the atmosphere came from. And if you say that that is not life, that does not matter, it still had to come from somewhere.
AlternativeDavid

Con

After Pro's first round, I honestly thought this would be thought provoking. Obviously not.

"I was told by an evolutionist that life can only come from life"

Don't believe everything you hear. If I say "bats are potatoes", does that make it true?

"So who created the atmosphere?"

Nobody created the atmosphere. The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and a very small percent of assorted other elements such as carbon and argon [2]. The fact that there is so much nitrogen and oxygen allows for life as we know it to exist [3]. I'm sure that Pro wants to know where all of this came from, but the Big Bang is a debate for another time.

Pro has not refuted anything I posted in round one, but has merely tried to bring the debate from evolution to the origin of elements and the universe.


[2] http://teachertech.rice.edu...
[3] http://www.feasta.org...
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Notice I called the Big Bang, the Big Expansion.

Expansion Theory is now considered by many as the dominant theory.
There never really was a Bang, that is a misnomer that they never corrected.
Some now call it the Big Silence, as the event would have been totally silent.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Pro did not make an argument and appears to have absolutely no knowledge of how Evolution works, if Pro wants to look at how life began according to Science, Evolution is not the right subject as it has nothing to do with life beginning, it only takes over after it began.
Abiogenesis is the science covering the formation of life from basic organic compounds.
And much of it has been demonstrated as practical already.
More practical and scientific than Creationism.

If Pro wants to look at the science of how the earth and air formed, he would have to first look at Cosmology, The Big Expansion and other origins of the Universe concepts.

Then the air on Earth when it formed would not support life as it contained lots of methane and other organic gasses.
Again look to Abiogenesis and the formation of Cyanobacteria.
It took around 2 Billion years for Cyanobacteria to replace the toxic air covering the earth with breathable, oxygen in it, though first it had to turn all the available iron on the planet to Iron Oxide, as this slowed down the production of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Some suggested fields of research/knowledge for Pro if he wants to argue rationally on this topic.
Posted by crushboy79 3 years ago
crushboy79
Thats the idea. poke holes in yo argument, bub
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Pro didn't make an argument. He just tried to poke holes in mine, and move the argument from evolution to the origin of elements and the universe.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
All Pro stated was logic, so I don't see why guys make fun of him.
Posted by codegrey 3 years ago
codegrey
LOL, Pro got wrecked!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
There is only one beginning to Evolution, and that is a living organism.
Living organisms are flawed.
Well, yes some have flaws, but not all.
That's the beauty of Genetic Variation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
crushboy79AlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro displayed a complete lack of knowledge of the subject of his argument, Con knew the subject better and thus made a stronger argument as well as Con supplied relevant sources.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
crushboy79AlternativeDavidTied
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: Sources. Proposed posssible mechanism.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
crushboy79AlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO did not even try to support his resolution, and therefore CON gets my vote.
Vote Placed by patrick967 3 years ago
patrick967
crushboy79AlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The only one with real arguments.