The Instigator
ThatRepublicanGuy
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Ramshutu
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

God is real, evolution is a flawed theory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Ramshutu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,213 times Debate No: 42520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

ThatRepublicanGuy

Pro

I would like to start out by saying that I would like to debate against someone who KNOWS their stuff. I don't want those who just say that evolution is right because it happened, like I have been seeing on many debates similar to this topic.
My first point is going to be the various flaws in the theory, such as the millions of transitional fossils that we are missing. This is a huge flaw in the theory that many over-look as, "A minor flaw". This destroys any argument of "Fossil evidence", because we have not found any of these transitional fossils! Where have they gone?!?!?!
Next, I would like to tell my opponent, whoever it may be, that genetics does not prove the theory of evolution, it contradicts it. The genetic code is so complex, there is no way that it could have just somehow originated. Please explain to me how it came to be.
Lastly, I would like to point out another contradiction in this theory. The lack of an explanation to what happened before the big bang. Science states that something can't come from nothing, and please don't say that how did God come to be, because i'm not trying to prove religion with science. God was always there, and the laws of science do not apply to Him. But, if the big bang were to be true, then what came before it? If you say many particles came together, then were did they come from? (And so on and so on.)
Ramshutu

Con

My thanks to Pro for creating this debate, and I hope that we will have a constructive discussion on this subject.

There seems to be a little bit of a difference between the opponents debate topic, and his opening statement. My interpretation of his opening arguments is that the theory of evolution is flawed, that many of the origin theories, such as abiogenesis, and the Big bang theory cannot be used to explain the origins of the cosmos, and that a personal God (not necessarily Christian) is real either as a result of this or for separate reasons that he has not outlined. If my opponent feels this is an unfair representation of the debate, I would like to invite him to clarify in the comments.

I will not conduct lawyering over the misuse of the term "Evolution" to include the big bang theory/Abiogensis, but would invite my opponent to try and use appropriate terminology where possible.

As my opponent outlined what his arguments would be ahead of the first post, I feel its only fair for me to do the same:

What I intend to show in my arguments are as follows:

- That evolution is a well supported, well evidenced theory, with no fundamental flaws as my opponent suggests.
- That the big bang theory and to a lesser extent abiogenesis, while incomplete provides an explanation of the origin of the universe, with the deeper atheistic philosophical questions concerning the origins of the universe being neither illogical, nor incoherent in this respect.
- I also plan to show that a personal God is a less rational answer to the universal question of origins.

Obviously, these are subject to change, depending on the arguments of my opponents. While I should have confirmed this prior to the debate, I would prefer we use the second round for our arguments only, with the final round for rebuttals, but am quite happy for my opponent to set the general rules for this debate.

I wish my opponent the best of luck, and hope this will develop into an engaging and thought provoking debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ThatRepublicanGuy

Pro

Thank you for taking me up on this debate. I would like to start this round off by saying that the lack of support by scientific facts, physical, or fossil evidence, does show that the theory is not well supported. That being said, why is it being taught in public schools? Though my opponent is not obligated to answer, since it is not relevant to today's debate, I would like to hear what he thinks about this.
My first point was the lack of transitional fossils, and how it pokes a huge hole in the theory. Back when Charles Darwin had created this theory, many doubted it due to the lack of fossil evidence. Though that was a long time ago, we still have yet to find these fossils, since there should be countless millions. An argument that I have heard before to as an answer to this, is that they are buried deep beneath the Earth, and that we have only dug up about .001 percent of the Earth. We should not have to look too far down, as we have found thousands of extinct creatures in this .001 percent. We should have found many transitional fossils by now, and yet we have not.
Next, I would like to go over genetics, and how it does not help prove the theory. The complexity of the genetic code is fascinating, and for this to just come about is mathematically impossible. It is said that the mathematical probability of evolution is equivalent to a thousand monkeys given a typewriter, and each typing Shakespeare without a flaw- Impossible. Genes alone also do not prove evolution, as the passing down of traits is JUST the passing down of traits! It does not mean that over time, that trait will be passed down far enough for a monkey to become a human, as some atheists would say (Or fish, amebas- I have heard many different theories and those who believe the theory cannot settle on one common ancestor).
Next, I would like to go over the lack of explanation to the big bang theory. Scientist still do not know what was before the big bang. There are theories, the question still remains, as I had stated in my opening statement, what came before that? This, once again, pokes a huge hole in the theory. Also, though on the outside, the big bang theory may seem possible, but once again, the probability is low. If the big bang were to have happened, how did the planets become so spherical? Every planet, star, comet, ext, has a common theme: They are all circular! I do not remember ever hearing about a square planet, star, comet ext, but invite my opponent to tell me about strangely shaped space objects.
Lastly, though I did not say that I would go over this in my opening statement, I would like to talk about the Earth's age and how it disproves evolution. Evolution is a theory based off of time, some billions and billions of years. Yet if the Earth were to be proven young, the theory would have no longer have time to justify why it is not happening now. Many facts about human history and discoveries, geology, the magnetic fields and about a HUNDRED more facts that disprove the Earth's current estimated age, say that the Earth may only be tens of thousands of years old. A fact that dates the moon at a younger age than previously expected is moon dust. Before we landed on the moon, we expected it to be a giant dust ball. This is because of the amount of dust that comes down to the Earth. When we landed, it turns out that there were only a few inches of dust, indicating a young moon. This is because if it was older, the amount of dust that would be falling off of the moon per year would basically make the moon a whole lot smaller than it is. Though this is the moon, and not Earth, we would probably know if the moon was younger than the Earth.
These facts alone disprove the theory, and there are also many other flaws that can be pointed out in the theory. Charles Darwin knew them, and so did everyone he presented this theory to. I am looking forward to my opponents response to the information that I have presented, and wish him also he best of luck.
Ramshutu

Con

As stated, this post is for outlining my argument; and I will rebutt my oponents counter argument in the final round.

Evolution, or more accurately the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, essentially explains that from a universal common ancestor and through the physical mechanisms of reproduction, genetic mutations and the processes of gene flow, natural selection and genetic drift can be used to explain the nature of the planet. [1]

I will start to summarise the evidence of this.

- The Nested Hierarchy -

When arranging life objectively by it's properties, you find a pattern that develops when viewing the physical or "Morphological" differences between species. Essentially, a nested hierarchy of properties are found: A tree. [2] You find that for a specific feature, all species that have that feature also have a common set of other features. Animals that have a placenta, have a tetropod skeleton, nipples, are warm blooded, have a spine, a skull, an anus that forms before the mouth, are bilaterally symmetric and have eukaryote cells.[3]

Such patterns build up consistently to provide sets of features within features: A tree, with no violations: No mixing and matching of different sets, or "clades"; no birds with nipples, no fish with placenta, and no mammals that do not have bilateral symmetry. This is evidence of descent with modification.[4]

Interpreting the tree of life as a "family" tree, implying ancestry is validated by chronology: As you go back in time the fossils will general transition down through the tree progressing to simpler and more common forms. And validated by geography: Fossils relating primarily to a geographically located species should appear in that particular location. Thus far there are a total of 250,000 fossil species discovered (1984) [5], all matching the tree, with a total recorded by Wikipedia of 175 significant transitional forms [6] for almost all branches of life showing the progression of most lineages but not for all species. All of which are consistent with Common Descent. Fossilisation itself requires specific conditions, which are not common[7]; while by no means a complete list of all species that have ever lived, there are significant numbers of both transitional and normal fossils that are more than enough to provide significant evidence for evolution. However, it is not by any means the only proof that is present, merely one part of a cohesive whole that all points to common descent via evolution.

-Cytochrome C "

More specifically, upon the discovery of DNA, it was possible to analyse the genetic code to determine the genetic differences. A good example is Cytochrome C, which is a protein that is the same in all species. Some genetic mutations can occur that do not change the coded protein due to how base-pairs code for amino acids work. As a result if common descent were true, these mutations will build up proportionally to the distance inferred from the tree of life. The results of this analysis show that the genetic differences between Cytochrome C on different organisms matches exactly what is predicted by common descent. A number of other genetic markers, such as Endogenous Retro Viruses, and detailed genetic analysis of the human chromosome further support this. [8]

-Other demonstrations -

On top of this, there are many other aspects, that I must only summarise due to word limitations such as atavisms (human tails or whale legs), Vestigiality; and strange quirks of nature such as the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe that goes from it"s brain, down to it"s heart and back up again; a trait shared in all mammals that offers still more evidence of descent with modification. [8]

- Mutations, Natural Selection and Evolution "

To start of with, the genetic basis of Evolution: mutations demonstrate the process, with numerous different types of changes that can occur on the DNA to change, duplicate or remove DNA information. [9] Having such an ability to duplicate, remove and change DNA, it becomes a triviality to explain how the DNA can grow from something simple to something more complex (with more data) when you factor in evolutionary processes.

The way evolution works, is by random mutations occurring; and a creature with these mutation either being more or less successful than its competitors. This allows the random mutation to spread over generations; as those that possess such a mutation is at an advantage. While some elements of evolution are random (such as genetic drift), this particular aspect is very much not.[10] Such a process can and has been experimentally verified with the E-Coli experiments, and evolving Algae to become multi-cellular [11][12]

- Evolutionary Conclusion "

As a result of the evidence above, we show a clear pattern of evidence providing massive amounts of support for common descent. Together with experimental evidence demonstrating evolution, and our analysis of the genetic and statistical processes at work, combined with observed and analysed types of mutations and genetics, it is clear that species are changing and have changed in the past.

As we have thus far found no mechanism or process that will stop mutations from accumulating, it is clear that the species will continue to change, adapt, vary and accumulate changes until a collection of small changes yield a massive change in long lost descendants compared to an originating ancestor. This genetic evidence demonstrates significant macro evolution is not only possible, but there is significant and extensive evidence that shows that it is the process explains the biodiversity of all life with no compelling evidence otherwise. As such, the results are clearly conclusive that evolution is not a flawed theory.

- The Big Bang "

The big bang theory is the theory that the states that the universe was initially very small and very dense, and began expanding[13]. The evidence for this comes from the observation that the galaxies are moving apart, the cosmic background radiation and the abundance of particular types of atoms (the last two are actually predictions of the theory) [14]. This is by no means a complete model, as we simply do not yet have the comprehensive physics and associated mathematics to describe the point of origin and the specific processes involved. But nevertheless, the observational evidence of the CMB shows that the universe was very small and very close together.

-Where did it all come from? "

This question is philosophical in nature. It is not scientific. Science is primarily about the HOW: how things do and have worked, with the nature WHY always remaining unanswered. This is less a failure of science, but more concerning the limitations of what science can and cannot do.

But, this doesn"t answer the actual question: Where did it all come from?

Firstly, to an extent, it is by no means certain that the fundamental statement is valid: It is only the human mind and the fact I find it intuitive that something must have a cause that there should be one. I know that the universe does not work in the way I find intuitive as anyone who has read quantum theory will appreciate. In the latter theory, there is fundamentally no cause of some occurrences: Quantum tunnelling is when atoms move through an otherwise impossible barrier at random. [15] Radioactivity decay occurs using random probability: there is no physical objective cause that makes an atom decay at any given time.[16] As a result, it is fairly clear that there are already aspects of the universe that may not have a physical cause, thus calling into question whether the whole concept of the universe even requires a cause.

To some extent, this is really a non-answer, however. Fundamentally, though, neither the religious nor atheists really have any objective facts regarding the cause of the universe. It is simply down to assumptions.

Those that believe in a personal God may state that there must be a cause of the universe, therefore the cause is God, while also asserting that God that has always existed, or is somehow timeless and so doesn"t need an explanation of its own existence.

From a purely atheistic position, I make this same assumption, that there is some aspect of the universe that always existed, or is somehow timeless that does not need an explanation of its own existence. The difference; it is not possible to infer any more than our statement that the universe requires cause. Positing that a personal deity that takes an interest in the workings and machinations of the universe at a physical level simply adds additional layers of un-provable, untestable assumption that is not directly implied or inferred from the question itself.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://tolweb.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://phylointelligence.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[11] http://myxo.css.msu.edu...
[12] http://www.newscientist.com...
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[14] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ThatRepublicanGuy

Pro

I would like to start out by saying that my opponent has done more of explaining evolution to me than providing evidence.
-The Nested Hierarchy-
The evolutionary tree is flawed, and those such as Darwin Himself saw it and doubted his theory because of it. The flaw is in the Cambrian Explosion. At first, there is creatures with a low amount of cells, the suddenly, a huge jump to organisms like trilobites. This happens throughout the tree, though not as dramatically as in the Cambrian Explosion.
Also, I am not sure if you know this yet, but wikipedia is not a very reliable source, as this quote that I am about to show you is from a quote from well known scientist named Colin Paterson, who wrote a book called evolution once said, when asked why he did not include facts about transitional fossils, '"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Other demonstrations-
Just because we do not yet know the purpose of certain organs, does not make them vestigial. Organs such as kidneys can be removed without the loss of life, but they are not considered vestigial. You brought up giraffes, though giraffes are evolution's worst nightmare. This is because the giraffe has so many systems that are so perfect, that many scientists admit that the giraffe shows traces of intelligent design.
-Mutations, Natural selection and Evolution-
Once again, this is improbable. As you said, evolution works by random mutations. But how can random mutations change a creature? Saying that one cell changed into a human through random mutations is ridiculous.
I am looking forward to reading your rebuttal, as I would like my questions answered.
Ramshutu

Con

1. There is a lack of support by scientific facts, physical or fossil evidence and this shows the theory is not well supported.

As mentioned in my previous argument, I believe I have provided significant evidence that is in support of common descent and evolution. This comprises genetic evidence, experimental evidence, fossil evidence and other biological evidence. I believe I have shown that there are many different avenues, all supported by extensive evidence and so therefore I feel that I have rebutted this particular aspect.

2. Why should it be taught in school.

I did not have the word count; so have added this to the comments section.

3. Lack of transitional fossils

As I described, the 175 significant transitional forms are by no means the only evidence; in fact form only a small part of the objective evidence for evolution. Given that we know the process of fossilization is very rare, not being able to see an extensive fossil record is to be expected. The issue is not the depth, but simply the process required as outlined in my previous source.

While you have no opportunity to do so now, I would point out that you have provided no source, or justification as to why we "must" see countless millions of fossil species.

In terms of your quote by Colin Patterson, I would point out that this quote is taken out of context, later on he says:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull."[13]

As such, the original quote is very much taken out of context, what Patterson is trying to infer is:
"that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question"[13]

4. Complexity of genetic code, Traits don't just get passed down.

As I mentioned previously, with the processes of mutation, duplication, changes and removal of gene sequences the length and complexity of the genes can be explained through the process of natural selection.

To use your analogy, it is like starting with one sentence, with you able to remove letters or words, duplicate letters or words, and change letters at random. Doing this at random will yield a random words. But if you take your paper, copy it ten times, and then chose the one that looks most like Shakespear; and repeat again and again and again millions and millions of times, you will likely have something that is understandable (although not entirely like the bard). The mutations are random, but the application of selection is not.

Passing down of traits in the same way is not random; traits that benefit survival will be MORE likely to be passed down than others; which means what traits are passed down and which are not are very much a non-random process.

I would also point out that the theory of evolution does not say, imply or state that humans came from monkeys. At some point in the past, there was an ancestor that had traits that both humans and monkeys share, these had descendants one branch of which acquired more monkey like traits, with the human branch acquiring more apelike and then homonid like properties. Common Descent no more implies humans came from monkeys than you being descended from your great great great grandfather implies that your mother is your third cousin.[4]

5. Scientists do not know what was before the big bang.

This is true; but again whether we find out what was before or not; the fundamental question of origins may not even be a valid question. Moreover as I stated in my previous argument, even if we did answer the question, God is no more rational or pertinent than simply assuming that some aspect of the universe, or multi-verse is timeless and infinite.

6. Why are planets and stars spherical.

This actually has nothing to do with the big bang. This is actually relating to Gravity; either Newtonian or relativity. The force of gravity pulls matter together. For a collection of liquid or semi-liquid matter such as a molten planet or star, the most optimal configuration is a sphere.

The earth itself, however, is not spherical; the gravity of the moon cause tides in the oceans that deform the spherical shape of the earth[2], with the spinning earth causing a bulge at the equator[1]. Further investigation shows that the earth is actually slightly pear shaped with the bottom being slightly "bulgier" than the top[1]

Also I would point out that many comets are not spherical, the most famous comet: Halley has been photographed and shown to be non-spherical.[3]

7. The earths age.

There are innumerable methods of dating the age of the earth.

The most common is isotope dating; we know the decay rates of certain elements fairly exactly. The ratio of that element to the elements it can decay into will allow you to calculate the date at which the rock became solid. [5]

You can think of each element that is used for dating as a stop watch that ticks at a certain speed; with different radioactive elements ticking at different speeds. Examples of the different types of element that can be used are Uranium-Lead, Samarium-Neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium as well as non-explicit mechanisms of fission tracking (detecting evidence of radioactivity in crystal).[6]

While there are a number of known problems that can occur, such as contamination and leaching, all measurements made using these methods broadly agree, with a very significant majority of all dates aligning as would be expected given the known margins of error.[5]

This is like thousands of stop-watches all ticking at different rates all showing broadly similar times. We can inferr whether this radioactive decay rate has changed by looking at the fine structure constant (which must change if decay rates change due to the physical laws of quantum theory) [7] As it doesn't, we can be fairly certain that the decay rates have been constant over time. Moreover, even if the FSC changes, the clocks ticking at different rates would all change by different amounts, making the alignment of results more unlikely.

With respect to moon dust, measurements of the rate of dust accumulations have been conclusively shown to be orders of magnitude lower than was shown by Morris, the original proponent of this argument; and with the properly measured values the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon would be less than a foot. [8]

With respect to geomagnetic dating, I believe you mean the argument used to date the earth based on geomagnetic decay. Unfortunately, this has several issues: firstly it assumes that the magnetic pole simply decays over time (for which there is compelling evidence to show otherwise such as magnetic pole reversal)[8]

Moreover, many other dating methods all conclusively show the age of the earth to be longer than a few thousand years. For example:

Dendrochronology allows us to use recreate tree rings up to 11,000 years.[9]
Thermolumniscence that allows us to reach up to hundreds of thousands of years. [10]
Amino Acid dating can allow us to get up to 10my dates [11]

Distant starlight, erosion, Geomagnetic reversals, helioseismology, Human Y chromosomal ancestry, ice layering, impact craters, iron-manganese nodule growth, lack of DNA in fossils, length of pre-historic data/ lunar retreat, Naica megacyrstals, Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds, oxidizable carbon ratio dating, rock varnish and stalactites ALL demonstrate a minimum age of the earth that is greater than 10,000 years. [12]

These dating methods (although some are just process that we know take a long time) are all used in conjunction with one another, with no single method being used exclusively to date an unknown rock, or other object.

8. God is true.

While I will not add any additional arguments, as I initially stated that I would only rebut in this round and as such as I am the last poster, this would not be fair, I would like to point that the half the premise of this debate, that God is True has not been demonstrated by my opponent.

9. Summary

To summarise this debate from the side of Con, I believe that given the original terms of the debate (to which I presume my opponent has agreed), I have shown that evolution is well supported by the evidence; that the Big Bang theory is a reasonable explanation of the origin of the universe, with the atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe being more rational and including fewer un-provable assumptions than invoking God. Moreover, I feel I have fully and comprehensively addressed all of my opponents issues with evolution, the philosophical explanation of the origin of life.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12]http://rationalwiki.org...
[13] http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
I second JonMilne's comment. Gs325jcbd is the only one who voted PRO, and gives not a single reason. Coincidence?
Posted by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
Gs325jcbd needs to be countered since his vote amounted to a vote bomb.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Ramshutu
Thank you for the debate.

If you wanted, I would be happy to debate any single point you raise in a seperate debate. I would recommend that you keep the scope of any future debates fairly small as the wide bredth of this discussion made it very difficult to do any particular aspect of it justice.

My suggestions would be debates along the lines of:

- The age of the earth is less than 10,000 years.
- Fossile evidence disproves evolution.
- There is no objective evidence in support of evolution.
- The inability of the Big Bang to explain origins means it is a flawed theory.
- Dating methods are incorrect.

etc. Something fairly small in scope that can be debated within the required word count to it's conclusion.
Posted by ThatRepublicanGuy 3 years ago
ThatRepublicanGuy
To: xashfordx- No where in my speech did I say God did it, I actually presented many arguments as to why evolution is flawed. Also, I never mentioned the bible, though I could to prove God. But, we are talking about evolution, so I did not.
To: Liquidz- I only said that because that is what we believe, and I did not want my opponent saying 'Where did God come from'. I was only saying that we do not try to prove God through science.
Saying evolution is true because it happened is a whole different thing, as that would be ridiculous if someone used that as an argument.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Ramshutu
"Why should Evolution be taught in public schools" - I wanted to address this somewhere:

Evolution is science; it is the culmination of 150 years of scientific method, investigation, peer review, and critique of the scientific community, it is well supported by all the evidence that has thus far been obtained and as such represents our best understanding of the origins of life from a scientific perspective. It is critically important to the understanding of life and biology, is predictive, and has real world applications in the fields of computer science, medicine and genetics. As it is such an important theory and well supported explanation it should be taught to allow students to accurately understand the science, so that they can, if so inclined, be inspired into relevant biological fields and in the future yeild significant discoveries in the field that may lead to the betterment of mankind.
Posted by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
Great compiling of the evidence, citing sources, and constructing sound arguments, Ramshutu.
Posted by xashfordx 3 years ago
xashfordx
ThatRepublicanGuy- You have no argument though if all you mention is 'God did it'. Plus you automatically lose the debate if you mention the bible or any other religious text as it is just a book of fairy tales written by men using it to impose their own views on humanity.
Posted by Liquidz 3 years ago
Liquidz
"I don't want those who just say that evolution is right because it happened"

"God was always there, and the laws of science do not apply to Him."

Sorry but that comes across a bit hypocritical? You said, respectively, you didn't want someone claiming Evolution is right, but then you said God was always there. Which indicated to me, that you know he is real. If you meant something else, sorry, but that's what I saw from it.

Just saying :)
Posted by Ramshutu 3 years ago
Ramshutu
Me too. This is the first out of about 15 that I've managed to get when I've had the right amount of time to spare :)
Posted by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
Ugh! I keep missing out on the good debates! :/
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
ThatRepublicanGuyRamshutuTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Clean sweep for Ramshutu for the following reasons: 1. He demonstrates a clearer understanding of science than ThatRepublicanGuy. 2. He answered TRG's questions and refuted all of his claims. One of those claims is, " If the big bang were to have happened, how did the planets become so spherical? Every planet, star, comet, ext, has a common theme: They are all circular!" Orbits of bodies in space are elliptical. And their shapes are not circular (round?) but oblate spheroid, geoidal, etc. This may be splitting hairs, but if you're going to have a debate about science, it would help to have a basic understanding of the physical laws to which bodies in the universe are bound. TRG, read about accretion disks. 2. ThatRepublicanGuy gave no sources to back up his claims. Ramshutu provided 29. 3. TRG's grammar needs work. It's a bad idea to use all caps and ?!?!?!, whatever that hell that is. It weakens your argument and makes it sound like it's based on emotion, not logic. Ramshut
Vote Placed by wateva232 3 years ago
wateva232
ThatRepublicanGuyRamshutuTied
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 think Con did his best in explaining and laying out his arguments. Pro did not post any argument backed up with evidence, Pro seems to base his views on his religious book. Conduct and S&G is a tied. Con neatly presented and made convincing arguments. Pro did not use a single source while Con gave multiple. I think Con really nailed this debate and it was certainly a no context. Pro should his lack of knowledge about the theory claiming we came from monkeys then we came from the seas, which showed lack of knowledge about evolution. Pro wanted to debate around 4 major topics that are too big for a single debate, yet Con gave it his best shot to try and refute every single claim from evolution to gravity to the big bang and the spherical nature of the planets.
Vote Placed by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
ThatRepublicanGuyRamshutuTied
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: Needless to say, Con wins on sources since he actually provided some, and while Wikipedia may not be entirely reliable, Con more than makes up for this with his other sources. With arguments, Con provided answers to all of Pro's questions, while Pro skipped out on a whole bunch of Con's questions and made nought but bare assertions lacking in evidence. Con showed decisively that Pro was guilty of quote-mining (a standard creationist tactic), that Pro didn't understand key aspects of evolution (the "coming from monkeys" claim) and that we CAN reliably date the age of planets as well as demonstrate that the amount of evidence we have adds up to UCA, especially from the fossils and DNA that Con pointed out.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
Gs325jcbd
ThatRepublicanGuyRamshutuTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed how God is real and evolution is just a foolish theory.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
ThatRepublicanGuyRamshutuTied
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: I believe in God and Evolution at the same time, so I can't really choose whose side I agree with. Since Pro and Con were generally respectful to each other, Conduct is tied. Same with Spelling/Grammar for the most part. However, that is where the tying stops. Con listed out over 20 sources whereas Pro didn't cite even a single one, going almost totally off of opinion and a flawed understanding of the evidence behind evolution. Arguments also go to Con because, although he wasn't really able to disprove Pro's cosmology arguments, he thoroughly proved that evolution is not a flawed theory.