The Instigator
K.Cross12
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
frankfurter50
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

God is Real, Evolution isn't

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
frankfurter50
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,073 times Debate No: 105166
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

K.Cross12

Pro

To start off, people have their own beliefs.We cannot make others believe what we believe to know. For some people it is horrifyingly uncomfortable to believe that there is someone bigger and more powerful than them; that someone can create the world with only using their mouth. The fact is that we all can find something in each belief of creation that we cannot prove but only to hypothesize.
First, here are a few questions to think about for evolutionists which they couldn"t give a concrete answer for. Why has evolution stopped for the apes? Shouldn"t apes still be turning into humans? Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? Shouldn"t someone have had to create the galaxy in order to make evolution start? Shouldn"t someone have had to make the meteors in order for them to crash and make the "Big Bang"?
Next, people who don"t believe in God would say it's a book and no proof. Well, it is a book that gives us proof ,and yes, we haven"t seen God with our own eyes but creation can prove that God is real.
frankfurter50

Con

To start off, people have their own beliefs, but we cannot stupidly deny one belief in favor of another, especially when the former belief has more credibility. Some people are actually foolish enough to believe that there is someone bigger and more powerful than them; that someone can create the world with only using their mouth. As most people know, this is physically impossible. The Earth was not created from the mouth of a deity, but rather, a swirling nebula of dust and rocks. I find it strange how Christianity ridicules other religions, but never looks in at itself to find how ridiculous it is. We are not better than other religions. Every religion sounds crazy when you look at it from an outside perspective. Hindu religions believe that there's a seven armed guy, we think that there's a big floating guy with a beard. None of it makes sense, and we must understand that religions, whether true or not, are all things which we, as people, invented in order to make ourselves feel more comfortable in an empty universe. They are, at best, simple moral guidelines, but we should not actually believe that a giant person made a woman out of a guy's ribs, or anything like that. The bible was written two thousand years ago, and we don't even know the author. How can we consider this a reliable source?

Science does not wish to entirely replace religion as an accepted foundation. Rather, it wishes to further clear up the mysteries of life, more logically than religion ever could. We do not have any evidence for the existence of Noah's ark, but we do have evidence for the cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...

We may never discover what dark matter is, or whether there are other universes, or what came before the big bang, but it doesn't really matter. We shouldn't be focusing on finding the true meaning of life, because we all die eventually, and we'll find things out once we get there. In the meantime, science provides a logical order to things. Humanity is reluctant to move away from something it has known for so long. The scientific revolution only began within the last few centuries, religion has been going on for millennia. However, by accepting science, we can become even more enlightened. There is one absolute truth, more than not, and once we find it, we will know everything. Until then, we should chillax.

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. Evolution has not "stopped" for the apes, undoubtedly, they are still evolving, although they probably won't become like us for a couple hundred thousand years. You have to understand, humans have evolved over three million years, so we have to be patient until another life form becomes intelligent. You can't instantly wave a magic wand and turn something into something smarter. And, just so you know, apes are not part of OUR evolutionary chain at all, they have evolved over an entirely SEPARATE evolutionary chain from one common ancestor. You have to understand, if you went back to prehistoric times, before Austrolopithicus Afarensis, you would discover apes that would look remarkably different from the ones today. WE have evolved, and apes have evolved. We didn't evolve from them, we evolved with them.

2. Apes don't turn into humans because they are different from humans (see above)

3. No part of bird anatomy is useless, they all help in flight some way or another. If you provided a link to this "useless anatomy" I might be able to figure it out, but, to my knowledge, birds aren't even related to human evolution, so why bother with this question at all?

4. Someone did not create the galaxy. Galaxies form over a long time. Our galaxy, the milky way, was probably formed over an unimaginably long epoch. Why do galaxies have to be created? They form because the matter within them is attracted by gravity. This question shows your ignorance, because you assume that something has to be created by a living being. this is remarkably egotistical, and shows how biased we are as a race. We don't think of gravity as being real. Are you one of those flat Earth guys too?

5. Finally, your last question fills be with despair and lowers my faith in humanity, because you don't even know what the big bang is. The big bang was not caused by two meteors crashing, because before the big bang, there was no matter. You talk about these "meteors" in the same way the ancient Mayans might mention a turtle god. You assume that everything is episodic and easy to describe, just like in the bible. You cannot comprehend a time when the universe did not exist. This, in my opinion, is a striking example of what religion can do to the human mind. You must not have cared about anything in school, so your conception of the universe is badly warped. The big bang was not caused by meteors crashing, it was the sudden expansion of the universe we know today.

People who don't believe in God would say it's a book and no proof, and they would be absolutely correct. There is no proof that some deity exists, and if he wanted us to believe, he should send us some sign. Don't you think? Just opening up the clouds and talking to us, something. Unless he does that, people just won't believe. There is no tangible evidence, and you have to admit that. It is undeniable. You say that the book can give us proof. That's not how proof works. Proof must be brought from outside sources. I could tell people that cows were aliens, and I could say that as much as I wanted, but until a study proved that cows were aliens, my claim would be false. The bible does not serve as a reliable form of evidence, because it was written by people who were enthralled by religion.

And you have to admit, religion has caused many problems in the world. the schism between Catholics and Orthodox in Ancient Europe, the conflicts between Islam and Christianity, reflected in the brutality of the crusades, the persecution of Jewish people by Hitler... Think about it. If nobody had any religion, then none of that would have happened.

Might I add that in Ancient Rome, Christianity was frowned upon. Jesus was a wanted criminal.

My point, above all, is that while religion may or may not be real, science has much more going for it. We don't have the rib of Adam or a snapshot of the parting of the red sea, but we do have the skeletons of cavemen and tiny cells that swim around on a microscope. The greatest tool we have, however, is our brain, which allows us to see past accepted truths and observe our own truth. That's what Galileo, Benjamin Franklin, and Einstein all did, and the world is better because of them. darwin is among the best, because he refused to believe that man was created from dust and, instead, observed the biological similarities between mankind and monkeys. And today, his theory is more accepted than all the Sunday School gossip combined. Thank gosh we finally know where we came from, after three million long years.

I await your next argument, sir.
Debate Round No. 1
K.Cross12

Pro

The Evolution Theory is called that, well, because it is a theory. It has been proven wrong. Evolution was developed before science had the evidence ability to prove the theory was false. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution. An example: A wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why does this happen, evolutionists mouths are shut. The wing stub of a bird did not make a bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stub would be too small for the bird to fly. This is where it hurts the theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their habitat. The bird with a half-sized wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Another theory is that evolutionists say that birds grew hollow bones to make flight less heavier. That is impossible. A bird can"t just decide to grow their bones hollow. That"s like humans saying "Hey, my feet hurt tell my brain to fly". Your brain cannot evolve flight. Also, if evolution was real wouldn"t we be able to evolve wings to survive in our environment? I mean, we went from a monkey to human, right? Think about it. It"s not possible. If a human evolve wings, than you have to tell me, that would be a world record or a great wonder. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. Meaning no two creatures or human would be identical. Another questions I would like to throw in is : How did life learn how to reproduce itself? Once again, the mouths of evolutionists" are shut. Which evolved first: blood, the heart,or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through? I mean, evolution had to start with only one of these, right? According to evolution we had to evolve to survive ,and I am pretty sure you can"t live without a heart. But if the heart doesn"t have any blood, the heart wouldn"t be able to pump; so how did we come to be?
Finally, it"s time to tell you about creation, the true creation of the earth, galaxies, and everything within it. In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth. He is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end. He is why evolutionists can try to back up there theory and say to meteors collided and made the Big Bang. It"s true God made the stars and meteors but the Big Bang did not happen. It all started with God saying what He wanted and it becoming that. One example that God created us is ,well, us. All of are organs were created at once, which means evolvement could not have happen. There is also a benefit in the Christian creation. In the Christian creation, you know you were meant to be part of a world full of wonders and that someone loves you decided that they want you to live on earth and eternal life in heaven. In the Evolution Theory, you are taught that you were a mistake and will soon just die. I don"t know about you, but I refuse to believe that I was a mistake.
frankfurter50

Con

You say that the evolution theory is called a theory because it is nothing more than a theory. It is not just a theory, it is an undeniable reality. It has never, to my knowledge, been proven wrong. Due to the abundance of evidence surrounding it, it has far more credibility than your theory of man being created from dust. Over one hundred caveman skeletons have been found. Probably more, it's just a rough estimate. We can see from their anatomy that they are not the modern species of human, and not exactly an ape. They are something in between. The first caveman skeletons were discovered, coincidentally, during an era of scientific enlightenment. People were finally starting to put the shackles of religion behind them, and discover other ways of looking at the world.

One thing I think is sick, however, is the 1920s case in which a teacher was brought to trial for teaching children evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This shows that Christianity is intolerant to other opinions, and, at this point in history, it was illegal to spread the truth. I don't think it's funny, I think it reflects the fractured psyche of a disgusting society. If I lived during this era, I'd hang up posters of Darwin all over. Nothing to do with the argument, really, I just thought I'd point it out.

Your ignorance is once more shown when you assert that the development of wings on birds had no direct advantages. It had many advantages. There were many dangers to prehistoric birds, many fearsome creatures who could eat them. By flying, they were able to nest where fearsome predators could not reach them, and thus, they manages to avoid extinction. Everything in the evolutionary process has some kind of advantage.

Your ignorance is shown again when you say that birds could not change. Once more, you wrongly assume that evolution is a quick process. Something does not evolve in the same animal, simple genetic traits are very gradually altered within a species. Due to your religious upbringing, you confuse "The world being created in seven days" with the actual creation of the world. Biological processes don't happen quick. The universe has existed for an unimaginable amount of time. Another flaw to your bird argument is that you assume the things before birds didn't have wings. Birds were evolved from dinosaurs, and some were probably evolved from pterodactyls, which were already quite adept at flying. There was probably never a bird with only half a wing. The wings grew out gradually, about a millimeter per generation, and the bird was patient while the wings grew in.

You assume that the growth of wings on birds was a cognitive process. they did not choose how to evolve. Nothing decides to evolve, it simply happens, over millions of years. Birds, as you pointed out, grew hollow bones to become more aerodynamic, but they did not decide to, it was born out of necessity. They needed to fly, so they did. You also compare flying birds to flying humans, declaring that both are impossible. We cannot fly because it defies the laws of physics. We have too high a body mass and our arms don't have enough surface area. Birds have a low body mass and a wide wingspan, so they can fly. It's not just an insane coincidence that birds fly, they do so through the use of science, such as physics, the study of motion, and a series of complicated mathematical equations involving gravity and so on. Once more, it all boils down to science. But you don't care, you choose instead to cling to your religion.

Humans have not evolved wings because we had no reason to. Unlike birds, we were capable of killing a saber toothed tiger or some other predator, we did not have to fly away. We were too heavy to nest in trees, and we preferred a hunter gatherer system. Wings were not necessary for us. We might still evolve them, but that could be millions of years away. You seem to put a lot of ridicule towards the idea of flying humans for a person whose religion revolves almost completely around flying humans. That's what angels are.

All plants, animals, and insects are in a continual state of change, it's just so slow we don't notice it. And just so you know, insects are a type of animal according to the five biological kingdoms of living things. No two creatures or human are identical. There are roughly 8.7 million species currently on this world, including bacteria, and every member of each species has a different personality. You can see that God couldn't have created all these animals, it would be too much work. You can see that these millions of animals could only have been the result of eons of evolution. Look at the bible. Of course, it only mentions bears, lions, and dogs, because those were the only animals that humanity knew at the time. Once we began to spread out, though, we discovered new species. Since the bible does not mention 8.7 million species, it can not be used as a reliable resource. According to Noah's ark, Noah had to get two of every animal. Nobody living, even today, could manage to collect every species of animal from a catastrophic flood, and if there really was an apocalyptic event like that, the results would be much more noticeable.

Finally, your flawed argument involving anatomy. You think, for some unclear reason, that evolution only started with one of three things: a heart, blood, or blood vessels. I'm not sure why you consider the circulatory system as an accurate representation of all anatomy, but you're completely wrong besides that. You must understand that there are other forms of anatomy than ours. Cows have four stomachs. Your reliance on human anatomy shows how little we think of other beings. I'll try to explain how evolution could exist without a heart or blood.

The first living things were one celled organisms which dwelled in the abyss of oceans. They were relatively similar to modern bacteria, and they had very little anatomy, besides some genetic information and chemical compounds. These one celled organisms multiplied, and became much larger, until fish appeared. Fish began to have the anatomy we know today, then the fish came onto land, and turned into dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are a type of reptile, so by this point they had recognizable organs, and then the dinosaurs died out and mammals came out, and it's been that way ever since. By the time of the first human like creatures, their anatomy was very much the same, with a working circulatory system and all the other organs we rely on. Throughout the eons, animals have been able to live on their own, without any parts missing. they developed reproduction as a way to ensure the existence of their species. Everything can, in some way or another, be explained using science.

I await your last argument. Please try to make sense.
Debate Round No. 2
K.Cross12

Pro

Wait, how are you going to say we all die eventually, and we will find out when we get there. Get where? Does that mean you believe in another place when we die? Well, you should because it's called heaven. And you are right once the people who believed get to heaven we will find out. Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence(proof) for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Lol. Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past:

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved
Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.
Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim, including you. Lol. Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today

https://i.pinimg.com...
frankfurter50

Con

I am saying that, once we die, we will discover whether atheism or Christianity is correct, so worrying about it before we find out is completely pointless. 100 years really isn't that long to wait, in the cosmic scheme of things. Perhaps all religions are true. Perhaps none are. People should be able to go wherever they want when they die. Hindu people won't go to Christian Heaven. That wouldn't make any sense. People can believe whatever they want and non tolerance of other religions is the ultimate sin that mankind can commit. Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the argument, I just thought I'd clear it up. If God kills people for not believing in him, then he's the evil one. It's evil to kill people based on their religion. Religion should not define a person. They should have a personality besides their faith.

You claim that there's no evidence for evolution. Why do you say this? There's evidence all over. Go to your local natural science museum. Your mind will be blown. There are displays of mollusks at different stages of evolution, mammoth teeth, anything you can think of. Denial of this evidence is futile. It exists. We have uncovered archaeological proof of evolution.

You claim that evolution should still be occurring. It is still occurring. what we see are, indeed, "transitional" forms. Saying that evolution has ended does not make it end. Denying the existence of evolution is like denying the existence of DNA. We know DNA exists, and if the DNA is jumbled enough, then a new life form emerges. Before attempting to disprove evolution, you should at least know how it operates. You wrongly claim that the animals as we know them now have always been the same. That's absurd. Our planet's ecosystem is constantly changing. We've driven many animals to extinction. The dodo bird, the mammoth. The list goes on and on. I'm not trying to be an environmental nut, but saying that the types of animals on the Earth never change is the same as denying the existence of woolly mammoths. We know they exist, we've found their carcasses. They are not here today. We have changed the amount of animals on Earth quite a bit. Even your "flawless" bible acknowledges, to some degree, the existence of change among animals: In the Adam and Eve story, snakes have legs, then God takes away their legs.

Cats and dogs are incapable of breeding a hybrid because their genetic material is too different. Not just anything can breed. That's like saying a ladybug can breed with a giraffe. Both dogs and cats have evolved separately. They might have a common ancestor somewhere, but you cannot deny that dogs began as savage Arctic wolves, and cavemen started domesticating them. Soon, from the different, slight variants of wolves, there emerged huskies, and then Labradors, and dalmatians, and all the others. Dogs have evolved quite a bit, but only within their own species. Same for cats. This is a good example of solid evolution. The slow, gradual mutation of a species until it becomes a slightly different species.

Man can't cause something to evolve without highly advanced technology, and the biological material of fruit flies is far different than that of a human, so the results would probably come out different. However, we do know about giant dragonflies from the prehistoric age, so insects aren't immune to evolution either. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution does go on much too slow for the naked eye to observe. You can't assume something will go fast. Evolution is a process which requires hundreds of thousands of generations to produce even somewhat of a change. However, due to the longevity of fossils, we are able to notice many anatomical changes in the structure of a certain species. Mollusks grew bigger over time, as did dinosaurs, and eventually, us. These fossils, of course, don't contain DNA. If they did, we would be able to construct a real life Jurassic Park. They are simply unavoidable proof of skeletons which don't apply to any currently living creature. There are no longer any dinosaurs, but we have an ample amount of their skeletons, thus, they must have existed.

And, yes, many of these skeletons do show clear transitions. Of course, if somebody finds two skeletons in the same spot, chances are that they won't be too different, but we can see that the Earth's crust is broken into several layers, and as we get deeper, the things get older, and the higher we dig, the newer the things are. A denial of evolution implies that men have existed forever. We haven't. This view has been developed from hundreds of years of man feeling a sense of superiority. We are animals. We can't deny this, we're only sacks of blood and mucus, and there is something much bigger than us, but it might not be God. It might be millions of years in which we did not exist. It's hard to accept, but we must accept it. Religion was invented in a time when man had no science, and felt compelled to provide reasons for his own existence before he was prepared to. Simply the existence of more than one religion seems to prove that religion is false. If it was true, it would be a solid universal belief.

Evolution is not a religion. It does not have a holy book, it does not have a messiah, it does not contain the concept of an overpowering deity. No matter how much we try to connect science and religion in our minds, it simply cannot be done. The two subjects are so contradictory that they will never agree. What I suggest is that religion is not accepted as an absolute truth, but rather, something to believe in and worship. Science, then, should be accepted as a rational system that governs our lives. Science does not have to replace religion. Contradictory systems can often work in harmony if kept separate. In Ancient China, Confucianism was accepted as the basis for society, while Taoism was accepted as a way to relax. People often practiced both, but did not consider the two to be in conflict with each other.

Evolution does not try to destroy God, it provides an alternative answer, one which makes much more sense and has much more going for it. Do we really need a God? Do we need a giant man in the sky? Can't somebody believe in anything they want to? Religion is such a controversial topic that perhaps it should be abolished. No, it shouldn't, it provides comfort to the human race, and provides the possibility of life after death, but I think some people refuse to accept religion simply because of how forceful it is. People should be able to build their own religions, and religion should not require conversion. If it was true, it would not require conversion. Religion is very corrupt. For years in Medieval Europe, the pope sold indulgences. The basis of religion, like all things, is money. I should be able to believe in a giant galactic bunny named GROX 464 who lives in a pillow if I want to. I should not have to believe what other people believe. The corruption and ignorance of many religions makes people reluctant to join. You have created atheism from your refusal to accept atheism even a tiny bit.

Atheism is a religion. So is Christianity. So is Zoroastrianism. Our definition of "religion" has been warped over the years. It's not true, it's just something you believe in, something that helps you feel better. If atheists want to deny the existence of God, they should be able to, because they are more accustomed to reality. And, if God sends them to Hell forever, just because of a lack of faith, then God is evil. I don't care if they believe or not, they're people. Atheists don't worship the devil. If they don't murder anyone, or rape anyone, they don't deserve Hell. If someone is forced to worship or burn up, of course they'll be reluctant.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.

We can't prove there is one.

There's lots of proof of science, and none of religion, besides a book.

I think that says it all.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Skywalker900// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: the con provided the best sources and made the best argument

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does not justify conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply state that one side was best on these two point allocations. The voter must assess specific arguments and sources for both sides, and compare them.
************************************************************************
Posted by frankfurter50 7 months ago
frankfurter50
Now you're not even making any sense.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Sorry Oscar I have other places to be... be well, and remember ... evolution IS A LIE ... look at the results of all test .... no creature was created, so nothing crawled out of the primordial ooze! Science never created a living tangible creature, onl bacteria, microbes which REMAIN Microbes to this very day!
Posted by frankfurter50 7 months ago
frankfurter50
Whoops. that one doesn't work.

https://img.purch.com...=
Posted by frankfurter50 7 months ago
frankfurter50
https://fthmb.tqn.com...(auto,1)/PeriodicTable-56a128ab5f9b58b7d0bc938c.jpg
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Uh-uh THE BIG BAND is not proven, its theory ... WHO created the atom? Who created the DNA
You cannot take the imaginary as REALITY and run with it. HERE is required proof!

Your just parroting and regurgitating garbage, you have no proof of!

Put proof!
Posted by frankfurter50 7 months ago
frankfurter50
The computer I'm on is made of atoms. That doesn't mean it's alive. Everything is made out of atoms, but only certain atoms have the potential to create life. Carbon can. Silicon might be able to. Quite a few atoms can probably produce life. All of us here on earth are carbon based, though.

You certainly show quite a bit of common sense by believing in people with wings. That's the definition of maturity right there.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
frankfurter50;
Oh didnt you hear? ATOMS can"t birth anything? Look around you. The computer your on is atoms .. you saying you have proof of a baby computer being born of those atoms? Can you send us a picture, have you picked a name?

Carbon based, not carbon birthed .. can you show us data that produced a baby carbon?

The stupidity of the human mind can be astounding when it is refuses to use intelligence and common sense in its equation .

Stupid as in the ACTUAL definition not the insult! stu"pid-having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.

Look you want to remain ignorant. OKAY, but don"t talk incompetently to those with true understanding, common sense and a well balanced sense of maturity. You wanna believe everything your told ... fine, but keep it to yourself please!
Posted by frankfurter50 7 months ago
frankfurter50
I will look at God, and I will say, "You know, for a being of pure good, you sure send a lot of people to Hell for not believing in you. Isn't that kind of a douche baggy thing to do? And why do you get a capitalized pronoun? I get that you're important and all, but why do you get to break the rules of grammar? That's like me calling myself THE UNSTOPPABLE GORGON OF MIGHT. And how do you break the laws of physics?"

You're absolutely right. I do have some questions for him. Quite a few.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 7 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Oh and in case you don"t tealize what that means, is that you have a bery angry God your going to have to deal with, in this Life or in Hell.

And when you tell Him, Well They said, and you look around and there"s NOBODY BUT YOU, standing before God? He"s going to POINT at your feet and say ... WHOSE FEET ARE THOSE? you will respond Mine ... then He will say the CHOICE was yours, you made it! You could have looked yourself. You will join the billions in the Lake off Fire, course you will have already been IN HELL, years before that! Just like Richard Dawkins, Thomas Henry Huxley, Julian Huxley, Niles Eldredge, Carl Sagan , John Maynard Smith , Richard Lewontin ,Ernst Haeckel, Sean B. Carroll, Randolph M. Nesse ,Jared Diamond,Jerry A. Coyne ,Stuart Kauffman and multiple others who Like you ... never bothered to ACTUALLY READ the TEST RESULTS yourself!

Such a pity!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by datGUUYY 7 months ago
datGUUYY
K.Cross12frankfurter50Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Frankfurter seemed to get a little heated from time to time--no big deal, just something I felt made me more likely to vote for Cross in this regard. However, Cross didn't seem to know how evolution worked, using misinformation as his arguments. This one goes to frank.
Vote Placed by Defro 7 months ago
Defro
K.Cross12frankfurter50Tied
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: The resolution is essentially a syllogism. (1) God is Real (2) Evolution isn't real. This means that Pro has two arguments, and BOP must be held for both. Pro's argument about transitional forms was very good, but the rest of the arguments against evolution was questionable. The main factor that lost Pro the debate was that Pro did not provide solid evidence for God being real. He could not support both claims in the syllogism, therefore he lost. Sources go to Con because Con was the only one who provided sources.
Vote Placed by yomama12 8 months ago
yomama12
K.Cross12frankfurter50Tied
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: While Pro brought up some interesting points, they had almost no proof to back it up. Con had a source for almost every point they brought up, and successfully negated the opposition's arguments with their own. Con also defended his own points by negating Pro's rebuttals. In the end, Con was victorious.