The Instigator
Anon_Y_Mous
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Georgenewland
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

God is real. (Christian-Father-Of-Jesus-God)

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 6 votes the winner is...
Georgenewland
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 863 times Debate No: 32406
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Anon_Y_Mous

Pro

The first round is just acceptance.
I will be arguing the point that God does exist.
Georgenewland

Con

I accept this challenge that god is not real.
Debate Round No. 1
Anon_Y_Mous

Pro

The first point I'd like to make is that we are here. This alone is sufficient proof that God exists. Am I supposed to believe that some atoms just 'got together' and decided to become a fish? Then the fish just decided to go up on land? We could not have evolved from fish, because we are nothing like them. It's just the process of elimination, if evolution isn't true, then God must be real.
Georgenewland

Con

We did evolve from fish, because a changing environment caused the fish to adapt to their therefore causing evolution to take place. The lowest member of the food chain (a type of fish) was forced to move onto land & escape it's enemies in the sea. Therefore adapting to their environment through evolution & as time went on each species that moved onto land's offspring changed & adapted to better fit their environment. We have fossils & genetic evidence to prove that this happen.
Debate Round No. 2
Anon_Y_Mous

Pro

If evolution is true, then organisms would slowly adapt. They wouldn't just suddenly grow legs. There would be a long period where the fish had nubs where the legs would eventually be, and they would be slowed drastically in the water. That means that predators could eat them easily. This would lead to natural selection breeding out the leg nubs before the fish even made it to land.
Also, if God is not real, how do you explain the B.C. years? And the Bible? Why would Jesus let himself be crucified if God didn't exist? If not Heaven or Hell, where do we go when we die?
Georgenewland

Con

They changed it to BCE (Before Common Era) & CE (Common Era) because of the abundance of scientific evidence that proved evolution correct. They found a way to dodge the predators, because they could still swim with their nubs, and they could still breath under water. then after a long period of time they grew full length legs and adapted to their environment. http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Not sure where evolution disagrees with creation, but regardless: Current theories on evolution do not have a fish walking on tiny swimming gills, but us already having working limbs when the transition began. Likely not the lowest of the food chain either, but a mutated strain finding new sources of food and then out-breeding those without (eventually leaving behind earlier food sources).
Jump to the 1:25 mark: http://animal.discovery.com...
Posted by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
Yeah. . . We were debating opposite points of view. Georgenewland is actually Christian. I'd heard that opener many, many times when people tried to 'convert' me. I figured some people must see it as a valid reason.
Posted by cybertron1998 3 years ago
cybertron1998
in pro first argument he says, "the first argument i'd like to make is we are here." please that is the weakest opener ever
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Anon_Y_MousGeorgenewlandTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments didn't really get off the ground, but they did not need to when Pro fell back onto an argument by assertion, which is a type of fallacy 'Fight Club is real, because it's mentioned in the book Fight Club.' A Google search does not count as sources do to the ever changing nature of it.
Vote Placed by Reni-1_3 3 years ago
Reni-1_3
Anon_Y_MousGeorgenewlandTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: People say Pro had better arguments, but Pro didn't actually prove that God is real, only used if statements. Also, humans being on earth is not proof that God exists, if that's true, then so does Zeus and all the Olympic gods. Con had the better argument for evolving from fish, since it has been proven that cells mutate based on their surroundings. Lastly, predators may have had an easier time picking off "nubbed" fish, but that doesn't meant they ate every fish in the sea, some could have survived to adapt on land. That is the reason I vote for Con.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
Anon_Y_MousGeorgenewlandTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to con for citing a source. Arguments to con, as pro simply attempted to debunk arguments against god's existence. This is not by itself an argument for god.
Vote Placed by Walrus101 3 years ago
Walrus101
Anon_Y_MousGeorgenewlandTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Much better evidence
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Anon_Y_MousGeorgenewlandTied
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: Pro had the burden of proof, but failed to provide sufficient evidence for God's existence, let alone the God of the Christian bible.
Vote Placed by Napoleon_Dynamite_915 3 years ago
Napoleon_Dynamite_915
Anon_Y_MousGeorgenewlandTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had much better arguments.