The Instigator
Casey3040
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheInterlang
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

God exists and evolution is false

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...
TheInterlang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 58212
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Casey3040

Pro

I am here to argue that God does exist and that evolution is false. I would like to go over facts and backup my statement and I hope my opponent can back up his too. No false language or insults, just a nice friendly debate.
TheInterlang

Con

Here are my main arguments I will be using.

1. The various contradictions in the Bible, and between the Bible and reality.

2. Many attacks against evolution are false (i.e., irreducible complexity)

3. Alternate theories that explain origins without a God.
Debate Round No. 1
Casey3040

Pro

Let's look at DNA. Such a complex identity. Such a language. The letters are ACGT which build up, literally, who we are. Now would you agree with me that DNA is a language? If so, we can say that every language has a composer. Look at English. The language we are speaking right now consists of 26 letters (like ACGT) that when put together makes words and sentences. When putting together ACGT you make genetic code (a gigantic language) that develops your traits (hair color, eye color etc) So now that we understand that DNA is a language we look at English. It was created by an intelligence. Someone made these letters and connected them with sounds. Same with every other language: it was created by an intelligence. Well if DNA is a language, then there must have been an intelligence behind it!

Secondly, natural selection as a backup for evolution? I don't think so. The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn"t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

Those are two strong points (one supporting creationism, the other attacking evolution) that I have stated. Please address my points and create your own for rebuttal.
TheInterlang

Con

First of all, there are some differences between DNA and languages like English and Computer Code. First of all, language, doesn't replicate/reproduce.

Second, DNA can mutate. Some creationist-scientists will tell you "There is no mutation that produces an increase of information." without clarifying. No matter what definition of information, the argument is wrong.

1. If Information here is a number of "Letters", then the statement is false. There are mutations that produce an increase in the number of nucleotides, and mutations that swap one for another.
ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

2. If information is simply a change in DNA, then all mutations increase information.

3. If information is visible in "complexity", the argument is invalid, since complexity is subjective.

4. If information is useful/beneficial, then the argument is false. Look up nylonase and Lenski's experiments with bacteria.

It may resemble a code in some aspects, and some may even call it a code, but that is metaphorical. DNA doesn't contain the information to produce life, anymore than baking soda and vinegar contain the information to produce bubbles. It's a polymer.

livinglifewithoutanet.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/

Natural selection is used to select good genes and eliminate bad genes, streamlining the species. It happens AFTER mutations, which are random. Evolution is essentially mutations plus natural selection. It's a random process plus a non-random process. Mutation takes many generations to happen in large amounts. It only takes a few months or years for a bacteria or virus, but it takes deep amounts of time for it to happen to humans.

If evolution wasn't true, we wouldn't have to get a flu shot every year, and we would have one for AIDS.
Debate Round No. 2
Casey3040

Pro

A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system"s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin"s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance " they simply had to be designed and created.

Secondly, Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies " they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

Lastly, if evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don"t see this"there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major "kind" of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven"t been.
TheInterlang

Con

There are no irreducibly complex structures. Many can be hypothetically broken down into smaller parts. Others have other uses. (e.g, a wing could have broken an early bird's fall, like a parachute).

The eye, for example.
1. Start with a light sensitive patch on a cell. This patch will tell the organism the level of daylight. Light sensitive cells are very common in nature.
2. Add more patches in a cluster, and warp them to give a sense of direction.
3. Add mucus to focus the light (like a cornea).
4. Add a hard lens for even more focus.
5. Continue adding more light sensitive cells (rods and cones) in a genetic "copy-paste" manner.

This may be simplified, but it proves the eye is not irreducibly complex. "Half an eye" is still more useful than no eye at all. There are organisms with all levels of eyeballs, and this pattern of eye development is even reflected in the development of humans in the womb. Our eyes start out as buds.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_development
www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/curriculum/vm8054/eye/EMBYEYE.HTM

The Darwin quote that you may be referring to was taken out of context. He was actually proving that what "seems" absurd really isn't. It may seem absurd that the earth revolves around the sun. He was simply demonstrating that "absurdity" is not a scientific standard.
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

The complexity of a watch doesn't tell us it was designed. We know it must be designed because (1), it can't reproduce, (2) it can't experience natural selection, (3) It is not subject to epigenetics or mutation, for it has no DNA. We have, however, observed these processes in living things, either in minor changes, or through fossils. "The creation proves the creator" is a tautology, since it asserts the universe is a creation.

Again, the way things seem isn't the way things are. The sun appears to be going around Earth, but it is not. Humans may seem designed, but they're not.

There are different types of mutations. The fruit fly experiment artificially increased the mutations using microwaves, so it is not fair. No one, except creation propaganda websites, says bacterial evolution is caused by a loss of information. Nylonase was created through a frame-shift mutation. Lenski's bateria were examined in-depth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The source from Wikipedia, if Wiki is unreliable: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461117/

According to the theory of Punctuated Equalibrium, evolutionary and genetic changes speed up faster in isolated populations than in vast populations. (Look at incest. Good genes and Bad genes from incest are more exaggerated) That is why there are very few transitional forms. But they do exist. Look up some pictures of human and ape skulls, and you will see the line between human and ape is artificial. (I don't know how to include pictures.)
Debate Round No. 3
Casey3040

Pro

Casey3040 forfeited this round.
TheInterlang

Con

I can see you have forfeited, so there is nothing to refute here.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheInterlang 2 years ago
TheInterlang
I am awaiting my opponent.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
I understand about the paper. I was not able to read it either.
The problem is that you are not reading the paper, nor a summary.
You are reading an opinion on some parts of the paper.
The paper is clear in those little parts, of course, and I respect that, but "evolution news" doesn't have any credibility, after the last paragraphs.

This paper is not defying evolution. It is defying abiogenesis, at least abiogenesis on earth. But it has as much evidence as abiogenesis tho, which has not been proved.
That's what "evolution news" can't understand, talking about "Darwinists":

"If Darwinists want to go on equating intelligent design with creationism, they will now have to take on the very secular journal Icarus."

The parts of the paper that are posted in the site talks about language, patterns and decimal system in the genetic code of... terrestrial life. The only think related to ID that it mentions is how it is difficult for natural processes being accountable for those.
But that's not different to the appeal to ignorance that great great great scientist that revolutionized science used after they reached something they were not able to know or understand, like Galileo or Newton.

I'm using this examples to show you that even great scientist said something that it was not true, although their words may appear on a scientific paper.

This could change the position of ID tho. It will only need predictions based on the hypothesis. Sadly, there is no hypothesis described in the "evolution news", just those that are part of the agenda of the site.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Posted: The study appeared in the Icarus journal. It is perhaps the most peer reviewed journal in the world. While I certainly could have gone to the original it would have cost $35. The notice in Evolution News gave the best description with the names of the authors which you are free to look up. Even if Evolution News were proven to be total trash (which it is not) that wouldn't change the article that was in Icarus.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(journal) If the link doesn't work copy and paste it into your search engine.
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Holy crap, I wish I had seen this debate. I would have loved to debate this topic!
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
And if DNA was designed (which I highly doubt given the lack of evidence), then the designer made several mistakes; junk DNA, lethal mutations, etc.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
DNA is not a language and, as ArcTImes pointed out, most languages are not "created". A language is defined as a tool for communication, not just a group of "letters". And by the way, ACGT are not letters, they are nucleic acids.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
I mean, it could be considered a good example, but not for Pro's case.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Really bad example from Pro.
Languages are not created (No, they do not have a composer, except for some weird cases like Esperanto) and they evolve over time (e.g Latin to Spanish).
So your example supports the opponent lol.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Lol, that's not evidence of intelligent design.
And that doesn't look like a reliable source, not the journal, the "evolution news" site that tries to get news about the "debate" about evolution vs intelligent design.
Sadly, I'm unable to read the paper quoted in the site, but what they are mentioning is known for a long time now and it is not evidence for intelligent design.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Casey, while I do not believe that evolution is false.... most Christians do in fact believe in both evolution and God's creative act.... that He used a guided evolution to develop the various species. There now exists actually scientific evidence that supports what you are saying.

Just last year a study was in the Icarus journal about it. The Icarus journal is the premier scientific journal. Studies which are in it become among the most peer reviewed. The study demonstrated that there was in fact an intelligence behind the encoding of our DNA. As a result there are only two possibilities: either it was programmed by an alien species or that a supernatural entity is responsible for it.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Casey3040TheInterlangTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Casey3040TheInterlangTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff