The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
67 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
175 Points

I can disprove evolution like i could disprove a book having no front cover.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,573 times Debate No: 6153
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (125)
Votes (38)

 

GodSands

Pro

Lets start by introducing what evolution and creation have to say on this topic. Evolution tells us that life on earth has arose from slight less complex orgianiums into more structured and complex orgains. All based on mutaions, eviroment and the survival of the fit.
Creation teaches that a supreme being normally named God, made all types of aminals, and none arose by chance or random selection. God made all the birds and fish, mamales, repties etc, then allowing variations with in a kind or family of animals (micro evolution) to occour.

Now i said the basics lets start by the meaning of science. Science means testable repeatable, and exspimental testing which would have a time limit, based on that, evolution will remain a theory. In 1930 the theory of evolution was worldly spead and was named scienctific. Using logical methods you can see fatal flaws big enough to fit every book ever writen in side. Let me enphsise this point more, to disprove Newton's second law of motion f=ma you would have you come up with a more reasonable formula instead of f=ma, here is the big news, the theory of evolution has no formula unlike many of the premoted theories which has the right to become a fact to the law science, just like gavilty f=ma or Einstein's theory of relativity e=mc2, the list goes on and on: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Boyle's law, Bernoulli's Principle, Charle's Law, etc., etc., etc. Yet Dawin's theory evolution seems to be left behind on the "language of science" which of course is formulas. You can not just use words in science since word vary between different languages, and numbers do not. There for a universeal theory like gavity (f=ma) has a formula which can relate to all languages, again i say the theory of evolution has yet to find it's own one, dispite 7.7 million man years of evolutionaly research, not one darwin scienctist can find the formula. No wonder a Noble Prize will be given to the one who can descoved this formula. Intill scienctists can find a testable workable repeatable formula i believe no one should, in there right scienctisfic mind believe one bit of the evolutional thory. I mean who questions Newton on gravity?

Next point is about: is there a genetic mechanism which can create new genes?
The answer is: no there is not. Dawin claims we evoled from simple bacteria into more and more complex life forms. The most simplest of bacteria has only 500 genes, men have 22,000. In order for bacteria to procced in complexity, organisms would have to add genes but there is no mechanism in a gene which does this, i supose you are now thinking of RNA, well all that does is copies DNA which is already there. Mutations never add genes to organisms, if anything it would take away genes from organisms. This is a massive flaw in the theory of evolution and again dawin scienctists don't want you to know this.
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."

As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.

What about biogensis, well the best theory scienctists have is a lighting bolt struck a pool of soup, hooking back to the privous point you can already tell what i would say about this topic, how did life arose from non living matter. At one point scienctists believe that this pool of soup had all the ingredence for life and lighting brough this puddle to life. Where did all the right ingretence come from? Also what are the chances of them being in the same puddle, saying there was more pools of soup just decreaces the chances to evolution to occour, so by saying that your shooting your own bunker. Lets take off are logic hats now and wave the magic wond and we can almost buy into the lightning stuff as a really remote possibility. But then what? How did the first living organism then add genes thousands of times in order to advance up the evolutionary ladder? For example, how did the ape that we all supposedly descended from add the genes needed to make the transition to Homo sapiens? Are the dawin lovers telling us that apes were swings around on trees in a lighting storm when a lightning bolt struck the testicals, frying them, then in some incredible miracal converting this apes prevous sperm into more pretencal offspring so the spesices can turn into humans (homo sapians). Can you see how impossaible Dawin's theory of evolution is yet your support it. Heres a challenge, go into a lab and strike your self with lightning, you may turn into a super human as quick as none life changed into life.

Next point is: Why are there helpless babies when the next genoration should be fitter than the last? Yeah this point destroyes evolution utterly. As birds and mamales are the most complex of creatures and according to evolution the most advanced in the race of being the fittest, yets birds and mamales offspring including humas are totaly helpless and need of nursing from day one. According to evolution should the offspring in birds and mamales to totaly inderpendent, as we have had millions and millions on years to correct this problem through mutations and survial of the fittest. Infantile helplessness supports logical creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving God. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as God intended it. This whole point just proves evolution false as evolution is saying the baby should have learnt by now after millions and millions of year, this baby should know how to walk and feed it self. Here is a test for you, set up a obitical course a baby against a fully grown man and see who wins, try it as many times as you like, if the baby wins evolution is true. God knew that evolution would show up so God made babies the way they are in mamales and birds. Yet you still believe in evolution, urrrr you believe in evolution because you hate the fact of God and evolution is the only mythical way of dislogding God from the equation. Theres still more as evolution teaches we came from bacteria 3 billion year ago or something, then as we can't add genes to our organisms as complex life forms how would bacteria ever ocompleish this?

We are not the only ones who thought about this. Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy. So yeah enjoy believeing in a false theory with no formula, no correct science only fake, and a theory which kills off a babies helpless atitude to life, Your saying babies shouldn't be babies but mean and harmful preditors which should live with no parent from birth.

Questions in the next round including the ones ive already mentioned

1. where did the motivation come from to make none life into life, we all know music doesn't motivate none life.

2. why is the biggest change (none life into life) the most effortless and fastest process of all? Like there had to be a split second where none life become life if evolution is correct.

3. yeah don't say alians came and planted life here, that only moves the problem else where, like Richard Dawkins says.

I will end here, yeah reply in 24 hours. looking forward to this, like always.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate focusing on the evolution vs. creationism "controversy". The title of this debate may be a little confusing, and my opponent hasn't explicitly stated anything in his opening argument. However, unless I am horribly wrong, it is implied that my opponent attempts to disprove evolution. I will gladly go through each and every point of his and refute them - he is PRO and has the burden of proof. I will now try to sift through the collective arguments and their challenging spelling&grammar...usage.

***NOTE***
My opponent talks about Creationism in his argument. Creationism has nothing to do with "disproving evolution", because presuming that these two explanations for the diversity of life on earth is a false dichotomy. Therefore, I will not refute/address my opponent's claim about Creationism, because they are simply irrelevant.

==Counterarguments==

"Science means testable repeatable, and exspimental testing which would have a time limit, based on that, evolution will remain a theory."

----> First of all, what do you mean by time limit? Secondly, from your very own definition of science you already fail in your understanding. As obvious from your phrasing, you seem to imply that evolution "only being a theory" is somehow a scientific defect of evolution. This of course, is NOT true. Colloquially, a "theory" means a guess - something people use in their everyday language. However, in the realm of science, a "theory" is the STRONGEST level, if you will, in science.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Look at number 5 for definition of a theory, in the context of science.

"the theory of evolution has no formula unlike many of the premoted theories which has the right to become a fact to the law science"

----> I know this is trivial, but the lack of understanding you have on the very BASICS of science is daunting, especially when you posit to use "science to disprove evolution". A FACT is simply a VERIFIED OBSERVATION, the weakest thing science has. A LAW is simply an analytic statement - it tells us WHAT happens but not WHY it also happens, which is the role of theories. Subsequently so, a theory can be comprised of SEVERAL laws.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Definition of fact.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Definition of law - see number 6 in context of science.

>>>Evolution doesn't have a formula<<<

Two points I have in refutation of this argument. First of all, even if evolution didn't have a formula, IT STILL WOULDN'T BE FALSE. It is my opponent's burden to explain why if evolution had no formula it would disprove it.

Secondly, evolution doesn't NEED a formula comprising of numbers. Evolution is simply CHANGE in the inherited traits in a gene pool of a population. How does this change happen? Primarily by the PROCESS of natural selection. A clear-cut dry "formula for evolution" wouldn't work because evolution takes place in the context of an environment - and environments are never the same. And because natural selection partially depends on the environment, you will have different results with different species almost every time.

There are TONS of other theories and laws in science which do not have formulas with math. By your own reasoning, is the process of evaporation unscientific and disproven? Of course not, and the same goes with evolution. Of course some of these theories/laws have some formulas but neither has an over-encompassing formula that explains the entire thing.

"You can not just use words in science since word vary between different languages, and numbers do not."

----> We live in the 21st century - language is really no longer a burden, and you don't see scientists talking in Latin all the time now. Every biologist on every planet knows the meaning of "natural selection" or "mutation", whatever language it may be in.

"I mean who questions Newton on gravity?"

----> They do when applying it on grand scales in the universe i.e. massive as heck celestial objects.

>>>Genetic mechanism that creates genes<<<

You are only talking about point mutations - which are definitely not the only type of mutations. The field concerning this is growing, but there I can already give you two examples of definite examples: transposons and polyploidy.

A transposon are sequences of DNA that can move around within the genome of a cell. In this process, they can create/change the amount of DNA in the cell. When two transposable elements are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme, it can very efficiently lead to the creation of new genes [1][2].

In polyploidy, the total number of chromosome can double or one chromosome can duplicate itself [3].

>>>Abiogenesis<<<

This is a COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT ARGUMENT. Abiogeneis =/= evolution so MOOT POINT.

>>>Helpless babies<<<

I don't know whether to give credit to this for it's originality, or disdain for it's idiocy. Either way, it fails ONCE AGAIN to even understand evolution. The problem with 99% creationists is that they don't even know evolution or how it works - which a simple high school biology class would suffice to refute this argument.

Evolution is mindless and uncreative. If it truly were a conscious being that had the mandate to make every successful generation as fit as possible, then us as humans would be able to fly, swim, and run faster than a cheetah. But no, evolution is a PROCESS. We are ADAPTED to our environments - with the exclusion of modern humans since we have used our intellect to use technology to rule the world. Evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it is "survival of the FIT". Take for example ants. They are one of the MOST successful species on the planet! And yet, for each colony there is only ONE who can reproduce! Each different type of ant are adapted for their indigenous surroundings, as is every other animal. Try this experiment: take the lion and stick it in a rain forest. Chances are, it will die out. This is because it's big and clumsy. Being in an area tons of trees, it sticks out with contrasting colors and will got spotted by prey (and maybe predators). It likes to nap a lot and if it can't do this without sleeping in the tall and crazy trees, then again another blow to it's survivability. In a rain forest, it will utterly not survive.

"Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy."

----> HAHAHAHA PROVE IT.

==3 Questions my opponent asks==
1. WHAT? This question makes no sense at ALL. The universe is mindless and needs no motivation.
2. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. And besides, who ever said it was effortless? Or fast?
3. Saying aliens created life on Earth is as likely or perhaps even MORE likely than saying "MAGIC MAN DONE IT!"

==Conclusion==

I have refuted all my opponent's points - since it is his heavy burden. I have responded to his 3 questions, which I have yet to see their threat to the evolutionary theory. I view my defense of it satisfactory as of this moment, and will wait for my opponent's response.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.micro.siu.edu...
3. http://www.polyploidy.org...
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

Right wow all you have done was disagree and reply inlogically, sure you wont see that because, YOU'VE been brain washed by your science teacher at school. Now your right on that I'm disproving evolution here and creation should really come into this and i shouldn't have to mention God either. Moreover if eveolution is disproven then creation would be the only sulution, thats all you are right on though. I cant say to much as all you have done is said your personal veiw on this topic. Yes you have given some links about laws of science but that is just proving science laws not evolution.

Ok what i mean by a time limit, is that basiclly you can spend forever on the exsperiment otherwise you would never know if the theory is true. Yeah another correction a theory is not a guess. Lets put this to the test I'm guessing that the sun's core is -100*C (about) therefore its a theory No a theory is mad up with facts, depending how you place those facts depends on the out come. In evolutions part, for example you say fossils are millions of years old, the fact is that they are dead creatures, the thory is that they are millions of years old. The only thing what makes you believe that is because they are millions of years old is because they are deep in the ground, you date the fossils by the rock its in, and you date the rock by the the fossil it was consumed in. Thats circular reasoning Big tim, no not Big Bang. Big Time. (I was explaining what a theory was, no science was nessary).

Right like my new theory (the suns core being -100 degrees yes that uses gravity, dont not mean its true. Yes evolution uses gavity too, i know this f=ma has little to do with evolution but i hope you get what im saying here? We know that the sun exists and we can tell the suns core isn't -100 digrees by feeling the heat of the sun. It would be inlogical to say the suns core is -100 digrees, yet because there is life and you dont believe in God you only, and i mean only can believe that life can arose is by evolution. Period!

Yes there are theories with several laws, the law of time evolution includes that, the second law of phermeildinamics, which evolution includs phermeildinamies slighty, only for once life time but not generally as a fact that specises are getting worse and worse but instead better and better. Yeah find me a sulution to turn things better and better as they get older and i Will believe it. I know what you are thinking now, your thinking they get exspraince in the enviroment and creatures add genes as a result. Like i said before, i guess you don't understand how much information DNA contains? One tea spoon of DNA contains more information than all the books ever writen. How is this possaible by walking, swinging, climbing, flying and swinging and ever being still (coral) even over five trillion trillion year it would still be impossaible, because these actievitivies don't collect information not like study does. That gives doesn't it, tell me how did memory evolve?

Next you said " A transposon are sequences of DNA that can move around within the genome of a cell. In this process, they can create/change the amount of DNA in the cell. When two transposable elements are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme, it can very efficiently lead to the creation of new genes [1][2]." Tell me how genes appear, don't just gather words, you said "When two transposable elements are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme, it can very efficiently lead to the creation of new genes" I would say that using a gene it had already! You are getting mixed up with DNA and RNA, RNA is a copy of DNA and yes the copying mechenism is very effected when genes already exist. RNA has around 20 mintes before energy is used up to work muscles, ever wondered way you need to drink a protein shake with in 20 miuntes after working out? Now you know.
For example, lets take muscle, to have movment you need muscles, so bacteria has very small muscles. So by saying creatures add genes is like saying there must of added the gene muscle, how if they couldn't move? Answer that HUH?
So when you talk about mutations are you saying that one day bacteria just got musclar genes? Thats what your saying dispite the increable amount of information.

About the formula thing, if evolution didnt need one why are they looking for one, and offering a Noble prize? Secondly you said that evolution changes so a formula would be unessary, well gravity differs in strength but still has a formula, the concept of gavity is f=ma, what is the concept of evolution where is the formula for evolution? As numbers/algebra acounts for every language a formula is needed to define this with no different meanings or tranlations, formulas are a univeral language while the English language is not.

You say evolution is mindless and uncreative there for you are both of those as your "part of it" (evolution) No men will never fly, but the other points maybe, we can run and swim, fly no because are bones are not hollow like a birds, i bet you going to say where are sweat holes are feathers will evolve. I'm aware evolution is not the survival of the fittest, because one of those ants might have a extra gene bla bla bla....inconcept of evolution that is indeed true. Ummm no ants are not the most sussesful animal on the planet, just because there is more, what if i added bacteria into this equeation, now you would say they are the most sussesful animal. Right? Putting a lion in a rain forest, umm ok that would help the others already there. Lions exists in rain forest so do elephents, they go to wide open spaces within rain forests, a gathering of elephents come to the water hole to drink, then they return back into the rain forest not seeing another elepent for a month or so. You ever watched Planet Earth? Its on there. That whole parograph you tpyed was pointless and incorrect.

I wish i could prove it, evermore i would never put a gun to ones head.

1. Ofcouse the Universe needs a motavational sourse what got you up this morning, what makes loins hunt, i can answer that, hunger does.

2. Well there had to be a second where matter was none living and another second where none living matter was ALIVE! Theres no middle to this, your either dead or alive, no aliad the middle of death and life, if only the e and a were swapped around when i would have put, as a joke. You have been alied to.

3. Alians just move the problem else where, you didn't aswer this question dumby. And God isn't Mr magic man either, God is what He is, "I am who i am" God is God an eternal being, far beyond even the smartest imagenation.

Going back to the helpless babyies, if evolution is true then in birds and mamales the offspring would be inderpent like most fish and repties, but wait birds came from replies so why is this. But wait again mamales came from fish millions of years ago, so why would mamales and birds give away sush a vital survival tool? How much more sussesful would birds and mamales be with out looking after their young. Im going to let you into flaw on my part here, maybe because birds and mamales can't carry so much young like fish can , so when they have young they look after it as well as they can. Neah i was joking there is no flaw here its the survival of the fit, so the offspring should be totaly interpendent from day one. Still dont get that then why didn't birds and mamales evolve a mechenism which could allow the to carry out more young, as they evoled a brian, that task shouldn't be to hard.

Closeing comments: So what you having for tea.......
TheSkeptic

Con

"Right wow all you have done was disagree and reply inlogically, sure you wont see that because, YOU'VE been brain washed by your science teacher at school."
----> You've been brainwashed by your religion. And no - I learned most of my knowledge of evolution prior and outside of my high school biology class.

"Moreover if eveolution is disproven then creation would be the only sulution"
----> I hope you mean "creation WOULDN'T be the only solution". Two letters can mean a whole lot of difference - LEARN TO USE SPELL CHECK.

"I cant say to much as all you have done is said your personal veiw on this topic."
----> That's what most debate consists of.

"Yes you have given some links about laws of science but that is just proving science laws not evolution."
----> My links were given where they were relevant. You have YET to supply an outside definition or source for any of the wacky things you have said.

"Ok what i mean by a time limit, is that basiclly you can spend forever on the exsperiment otherwise you would never know if the theory is true."
----> I don't think this is even included on the requirements of an experiment. Isn't it just plain common sense?! Of course you can't test something that takes forever - you'll never get done.

==Counterarguments==

>>>Evolution uses circular reasoning when using fossil record evidence<<<

The beauty of evolution is that tons of different fields in science get the same answer. Geologists agree with the biologists, etc. etc. Even if we had no fossil record, we would STILL have ample evidence to support evolution. Anyway, radiometric dating are fundamental tools used by geologists and archaeologists and this is used in relevance to the fossil record. So NO, there is no "circular reasoning big time".

>>>Some argument pertaining to my opponents "theory of the sun"<<<

"Yes evolution uses gavity too"
----> WHAT?

"yet because there is life and you dont believe in God you only, and i mean only can believe that life can arose is by evolution. Period!"
----> Not only is this not an argument against evolution (only against it's proponents), you are ONCE AGAIN committing the false dilemma fallacy. The explanations for the diversity of life are not just God and evolution - it can be a vast variety of things. Aliens, spontaneous speciation, etc. Whatever your mind can conjure is a possibility. However, we look at the EVIDENCE. And the evidence speaks for evolution.

>>>Some argument pertaining to law of thermodynamics and gaining information<<<

"the law of time evolution includes that"
----> WHAT in the world is the law of time?! Could I have a link? Now you could very possibly find a link referring to something called a "law of time", but if it has an relevance to what we've discussed in this debate I doubt.

"the second law of phermeildinamics"
----> ..THERMODYNAMICS? That was almost impossible to decipher. And exactly how does evolution include that law? And how is it even relevant?

The rest of my opponent's argument is once again a COMPLETE red herring. Evolution happens on the GENE POOL and upon GENERATIONS. Living animals do NOT gain extra traits during their lifetime - it is only their FUTURE OFFSPRING, their FUTURE GENERATIONS. My opponent's failure to understand this fundamental concept of evolution speaks bounds.

>>>Mechanisms that can create new information<<<

If I can deciphered my opponent's quirky analogy right, he is once again referring to ABIOGENESIS. How the first gene appears is of no relevance to evolution. How many times must the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution be made?!

>>>A formula for evolution<<<

"if evolution didnt need one why are they looking for one, and offering a Noble prize? "
----> Could you give me a link for this claim? Though I probably found a website where you got your arguments: http://darwinconspiracy.com.... What a ridiculous website.

Gravity is different from evolution. Gravity is a natural phenomena (that means an observable occurrence) and applied to everything in the universe on a relativistic scale. The bigger you are - the more gravitational pull you will have. That is why you can have a formula, because formula's need to apply to everything they are designed for. Evolution is a PROCESS. It happens on account of a TON of factors: mutations, environment, gene drift, etc. We can not account for the myriad of factors that come into evolution - we need some incredible super machine to do so, which is leaps ahead of our current technology. Evaporation is also a process and it doesn't have a formula - you have yet to respond against this example. Should evaporation be considered unscientific?

>>>Evolution is mindless and creative<<<

"Ummm no ants are not the most sussesful animal on the planet, just because there is more,"
----> I said they are ONE of the most successful animals on the planet. Ants cover almost every landmass on earth, and constitute about 15-20% of the TOTAL TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL BIOMASS [1]. THAT is called a successful species (in terms of surviving and producing future generations).

"Lions exists in rain forest so do elephents"
----> The habitats of currently existing lions are the sub-Saharan savanna grasslands and some Asiatic lions live in dry savanna forest and very dry deciduous scrub forest - DEFINITELY not a rain/tropical forest [2].

"That whole parograph you tpyed was pointless and incorrect."
----> HAHA this phrase totally applies to YOU. Anyway, you have failed to refute the entire point of my "useless paragraph". If in the case those analogies were factually incorrect, then it doesn't matter. I can just research a little and find another animal that can't live in some different habitat. You have COMPLETELY DODGED my core point - which is that evolution is mindless and uncreative. What it produces are species best adapted to it's environment. Go watch "Planet Earth" and look at any major species of animal that hasn't been intruded by humans. Are they horribly dying? Are their numbers dropping and they have no hope of survival? No - of course not. Most animals have at least a few ways to escape their predators, and their predators have a few ways to kill their prey. It's all in a balance (until virus species and human interaction comes in of course). Evolution creates FIT species, not "superspecies".

>>>Helpless baby argument<<<

Sure, we can conceive of ways that species could be created better. Birds should be able to run on their feet or have sharper beaks, OR HECK BE ABLE TO SWIM. Why do humans have a bad backbone? Because it's made to be better for four-legged animals. Our why we have wisdom teeth, which is a painful and useless addition to our anatomy because of our smaller jaws (our fellow primates have bigger jaws, so wisdom teeth are part of their normal teeth). Or perhaps our backwards eye. Or perhaps the danger of having two pipes for eating and the other for breathing [3]. But guess what - we and many other species of animals SURVIVED AND REPRODUCED. Evolution doesn't create the best "equipped" species imaginable, it creates what have been successfully adapted. Evolution is mindless and uncreative, and your point fails.

>>>3 questions my opponent asked me <<<

1. The universe is NOT conscious. It does NOT have a mind. Therefore it has NO motivation. Unless of course, you want to PROVE that the universe has a mind. Be my guest, that's quite a burden.

2. ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. STOP BRINGING UP THIS DEAD POINT.

3. Why isn't using aliens as a reason be a possible answer? Calling people "dumby" and saying "that's not right" isn't arguing - it's whining. Aliens is totally a possible answer, though as of now not PROBABLE.

==Conclusion==
I have refuted all points and await my opponent's answer in eagerness.

---References---
1. http://www.pnas.org...
2. http://www.asiaticl...
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

You are ment to give me proof for evolution here, not a personal response but since you have i will too. Ill talk about brainwashing first ok about the brain washing thing. Who was sitting in the class room being taught what you thought was science, who was alone when i came to Christ? I was no one brain washed me, no one was with me. I was watching a debate on creation vs evolution and i understood. I repented and opened the door to Jesus. You have opened the door to evolution, something that will not save your spirit. Brain washing is when you get told a lie too many times you believe it. And how many time have you been told evolution is true? Hundredes, yes? When you just are starting to get to know life you come across evolution which you can not sense with any of your 5 sences. You only hear it spoken from other people, Ive felt God's spirit personally. And no matter what yousay i WILL never give up my 5 sences If i taste it i believe i am tasting, if i see it i am seeing it, if i hear it i am hearing it, if i smell it i am smelling it, if i feel it i am feeling it. That goes for evolution too, the thing is i just can't do any of those things and relate to evolution with any of my 5 sences. There for i shall not believe, Ive felt God and i was given His understanding, and so i Believe that!!!!

I just notice you saying you learn most of your evolution outside of class, well are you the second Darwin otherwise its the same. 1 or 100 people being taught. You've been told a story, a myth. Remeber my theory about the sun being -100 in its core. Wouldn't you have to see that to believe it, and like me no one will believe you intill you do so. I pity athiests I could put myself in your place with ease, Its like eating something what looks unpleasent but it actually being real nice. Couldn't you imagin a story tale on evolution. Once apon a time long ago, a thunder storm was raging above water that Boom!!! Life arose. Mummy where did the life come from?

Sorry i didn't actually watch links since its not your debate. But i say this again and listen/red close, with no formula to the theory it is not a law of science. Evolution is still a theory, Its only a theoy because people would like it to be one as people hate the fact of God's existance.

Through out the Bible God is mentioned to be Love. According to athiests the universe is none loving or hating. I ask you, do you love life? If you say no then why are you still alive. If someone was going to kill another person then they would hate that person, you dont kill someone you love. So if the universe is nutral on death and life then wouldn't the universe stay lifless, so it could not hate (death) or love (birth) We both obivously know that birth is before death. And if you have birth you have death, So why do animals try to live at their best like us. Why would a nutral universe create such a thing as love and hate, the universe loves nothing nore does it hate anything. E.g. if a rock was lunched by a machine at two people with the same force and distance, and the people were the same age and gender, it would hurt them the same. Only enjoyment and joy comes from love and God IS LOVE!!!! Answer that!

About the time limit thing, You need to take a piece of evolution (macro) and play around with that maybe chane a dog into a tiger in 10 minutes. Otherwise you can not prove it.

"The beauty of evolution is that tons of different fields in science get the same answer. Geologists agree with the biologists, etc."- Right to prove your point you should have said evolutionists agree with Geologists, what you said is like me saying. " The beauty with Halo is that tons of different fields in maths get the same answer. The number of picells on screen agree with the amount of alians on screen. What im saying is in the catogolry according to evolution the Geologists and Boilogists agree with in the feild of evolution. Not according to life. Like we debated last night, only history can prove things fact through past time on the accout that you know something is and says so like the Bible, it says God made the universe and all in it in 6 days. And i can see the Universe and all in it. On evolutions behafe you are told what was in it as well whats in it today from what was in it. This links back to the 5 senses I see, feel, hear, smell and taste what is there just like the Bible says. "In the beginning God made/created the sky and the earth" I see that " Read the first part of Genesis and see how many of your senses you can sense as you live. Read a book on evolution and see how many you can sense as you live.

The sun burns 500,000,000 tons on Hydrogen a second if the sun was 30 million years old the sun would be touching earth and there would be no Venus or Mercury. Evolution has no formula i bet theres a formla for that.

Time is the hero of evolution. Have you heard of monkeys typing the entire work of Shakespear by just randomly pressing any key. Like evolution is ment to be random. Did you know that because of the information you can see in creatures and according to evolution it has only taken 3.5 billion years to get where we are now. A tea spoon of DNA contains enough information to hold every book ever wrinten. Just a tea spoon. So the monkeys would have filled up all o the universe on wasted paper randomly trying to type the works of shake spear And yet there is no where near that amount of fossils. The universe is only 6000 years old and evolution takes for ever to happen. In the early 19th centrey people thought evolution took only 2 billion years, I will look it up probably and put it as a comment. And since then its 3.5 billion years. You see my point. How long would it take a dog to evolve into another species, dispite the fact i can't even think of another tpye of spesies, as all where made by God. So give me a genetic avantage/possitive mutation that you could add to a fish. As Richard Dawkins said "There is no end or goal to evolution".

"My opponent's failure to understand this fundamental concept of evolution speaks bounds." Tell me what am i missing here? My mind is no different than yours, you can see words that i can and i can see words you can.

>>>Mechanisms that can create new information<<< Since you did not get me here, you say that life gains exspriance and then life gains new genes. Well answer this. Unless life started with muscles to move then how life did gain muscle if it couldn't move. Life would simply die out unless its fully made by a higher intellengents aka God. So answer it or amit your wrong.

Yes but the general meaning of evolve remains the same. According to evolution, creatures change, over time, but the creature transforms. Why dont you keep changing to word "evolution" in your case?

I can not believe you say animals are uncreative, Since you believe evolution has no spirtial mind, show me a better design than a lifing animal, since you have a brain. Like i said man is copying the design of Gods creature, like the eyes as in the cars windows and the tears as in the water spray to clean the window screen, and the heart as the engin and the oil like the blook, for goodness sake you can even see a facil expression when you look and the front of a car, not matter what car or any man made means of transport.

Ok yes a ant is one very sussesful insect, probably because their good at desposing of leaves and keeping places clean, Did you know a ant a size of a man could lift a house. Oh and why have dung bettles been around for 230 million years, why have they not evolved? Ill tell you why, its because sciencetist got it wrong about the whole age thing. Some scienctists are pleading to education to stop taching evolution in schools as its a bad name for them. Why would scienctists do that to a so called scienctific based theory. Your decide on that one.

I only have 49 letters left. Alian only move it the problem else where. Thank You.
TheSkeptic

Con

The human brain is extremely susceptible to illusory correlations and imaginations - never trust your senses. And just because you can't physically observe something without your 5 senses does NOT mean it's not there. We have a million scientific tools and methods, it's the 21st century bub.

==Counterarguments==

"Remeber my theory about the sun being -100 in its core. Wouldn't you have to see that to believe it"
----> Don't use the word "theory". In scientific terms, which is detrimental to get confused in this type of debate, you certainly do NOT have a theory about the sun being -100 degrees - you have a wild hypothesis. I would NOT have to see the sun to believe it, because: first my eyes will burn and two there are many different methods of testing your wild hypothesis. This is how science works, and this is why your argument saying that evolution needs to be "observed by one of our five senses to be true" is horribly false.

"Once apon a time long ago, a thunder storm was raging above water that Boom!!! Life arose. Mummy where did the life come from?"
----> What part of ABIOGENESIS =/= EVOLUTION do you not understand?

"Sorry i didn't actually watch links since its not your debate. But i say this again and listen/red close, with no formula to the theory it is not a law of science."
----> Oh brilliant response. So you disregard my entire rebuttal and just repeat your claim again? I doubt this is how a DEBATE is supposed to be. Ladies and gentlemen who are the voters, I will NOT refute his point again because he has simply NOT refuted my argument. It would be ridiculous to type up another whole argument when I already have one that is unanswered.

"Evolution is still a theory"
----> Have I not already explained what a scientific theory is?! Have you even read my arguments?! I will not refute this point for he hasn't responded to my argument pertaining to this preposterous claim.

"Its only a theoy because people would like it to be one as people hate the fact of God's existance."
----> Again, I've stated that you are committing a false dilemma fallacy. Evolution and God/Creationism are NOT the only two explanations for the diversity of life. You are simply glossing over my arguments.

>>>Argument pertaining the universe and love<<<
This can NOT come from a college student. The brevity of the RIDICULOUSNESS in this argument is amazing - by bounds unknown. The voters can disregard this entire argument for TWO reasons. One, the universe HAS NO MIND. IT IS NOT CONSCIOUS SO IT CAN'T LOVE. Secondly, this is in NO way relevant to evolution.
>>><<<

"About the time limit thing, You need to take a piece of evolution (macro) and play around with that maybe chane a dog into a tiger in 10 minutes. Otherwise you can not prove it."
----> What is a piece of evolution? A piece of a change, of a process? Again a ridiculous notion from creationism. And if you really think evolution claims that a dog can change into a tiger in 10 minutes, then you are RIDICULOUSLY WRONG. Evolution works on GENERATIONS, which means the current dog will NOT change into a tiger - only its future offspring might. Secondly, EVOLUTION AIN'T THAT FAST. We never said it to, so stop with the strawmans.

>>>Argument pertaining to geology (fossil record)<<<
So once again, my opponent dodges the point I made about radioactive dating and strata layers and talks about the Bible. He hasn't refuted my point with science or heck with anything reasonable - I will not waste my time again when my arguments are not refuted.
>>><<<

"The sun burns 500,000,000 tons on Hydrogen a second if the sun was 30 million years old the sun would be touching earth and there would be no Venus or Mercury. Evolution has no formula i bet theres a formla for that."
----> First of all,that handy fact you have has nothing to do with evolution. Second of all, you once again HAVE NOT REFUTED MY ARGUMENT PERTAINING TO A FORMULA. You just repeat your claims over and over.

>>>Argument pertaining to time<<<
WOAH WHEN DID YOUR SPELLING SUDDENLY IMPROVE? Probably because you copy-pasted. Anyway, the common analogy of the monkeys pressing random keys is a strawman. Evolution is NOT RANDOM. Evolution is the process of randomly varying mutations being chosen in a NONRANDOM WAY.

Your point about DNA is irrelevant - THIS IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.

"The universe is only 6000 years old "
----> You say evolutions takes forever to happen and can't because the universe is only 6000 years old. Well HMM, maybe the universe is NOT 6000 years old but rather 13.5-14.0 BILLION years old [1]?!

"So give me a genetic avantage/possitive mutation that you could add to a fish."
----> Mutations are neutral. It's when you incorporate the environment to the formula (hehe joke intended) that you can you see whether or not something is advantageous or not.
>>><<<

>>>Mechanisms that can create new information<<<
My opponent has not refuted my argument pertaining to mechanisms that create new information, but rather given me another ridiculous argument. Life having muscles? If this is MEANT to be abiogenesis (which *sigh* aint evolution) I don't even know what it means. Life having muscles...WAH?!
>>><<<

"Yes but the general meaning of evolve remains the same. According to evolution, creatures change, over time, but the creature transforms. Why dont you keep changing to word "evolution" in your case?"
----> What? The creatures themselves don't change during their lifetime - only the gene pool.

"I can not believe you say animals are uncreative, Since you believe evolution has no spirtial mind, show me a better design than a lifing animal"
----> An animal that can lift object with it's mind.

"Like i said man is copying the design of Gods creature, like the eyes as in the cars windows and the tears as in the water spray to clean the window screen, and the heart as the engin and the oil like the blook, for goodness sake you can even see a facil expression when you look and the front of a car, not matter what car or any man made means of transport."
----> It's not relevant to evolution. And I don't even wanna pick your analogy apart, it's just...

"Oh and why have dung bettles been around for 230 million years, why have they not evolved?"
----> A species doesn't NEED to evolve. Similarily, there are perhaps species that have evolved from the dung beetle, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the dung beetles are dead. It just means there are several species now.

"Alian only move it the problem else where."
----> As I've said, putting your hands over your ears and claiming the same thing over and over again while not refuting my arguments is NOT how to debate.

===CONCLUSION===

VOTERS, the obvious vote is for CON. My opponent has dropped MANY argument, and hasn't refuted MANY of my rebuttals. He constantly adds new arguments while leaving his previous ones behind, ones that I have already answered. For example, where's the argument pertaining helpless babies? From votes to spelling and grammar to convincing arguments - vote CON. Though I can understand if I get marked down for conduct - frankly, conduct is a stupid and irrelevant point anyway.

---References---
1. http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
125 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
GodSands, don't even try. Your arguments are ridiculous, and you have obviously been owned by TheSkeptic.
Posted by XJohn 8 years ago
XJohn
you have only attacked the idea of me not wanting god to exist, you have not proven why god exists outside of time

you still have not directly answered my argument that using the concept of god to prove gods existence is a circular argument

continually if God has the capability to "stop time" no one would die, we would all be frozen in an instant, stopping time means that no change can happen whatsoever, it would be living in a moment, and thus if god were to "stop time" nothing would happen, no one could die because to die would take a change, a change from living to not living

next, even if it were true that if god were to stop time we would die only in pain, there is no reason why death only in pain would destroy hope, what about Joan of Ark, she was burned in a fire for her belief in God, obviously a death in pain, yet she never lost hope even in that last moments of her life, though Joan of Ark died in pain, God never died to her.

and yes there WILL always be time in this universe, but my question to you was why is god outside of the boundaries of time?
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
God was Jesus in human form. Why would one want God to be least powerful. This universe is consummed in time if God was to stop time we would never die and our reward and living with God would be gone for we would live forever here. In sin. We would have to die in pain not of age. And that would destroy all hope of man, like the ghotto in germany when Jews lost their faith. God would be dead, for us. There will always be time in this universe. God wants us to come to Him. Like He has come to us.
Posted by XJohn 8 years ago
XJohn
and the only warrant you had to that claim was that god is outside of time because if he was inside time he wouldn't be god, hence me saying that your argument was circular
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
No its because tthe 4th dimention has no effect on God.
Posted by XJohn 8 years ago
XJohn
You tried to disprove evolution earlier by saying that there is no evidence, or way to explain, how the process of evolution started, you can't simply just say there is no explanation as to how evolution started, and use that lack of information to disprove it's validity

Secondly you just said, "God was not made because if that was the case God would not be God" and are you going to tell me that that wasn't a circular argument? God must have always existed because if he didn't always exist, he could never have existed, the fact that you can beleive that to be true is absurd
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Ok then, God was not made because if that was the case God would not be God and that what made God would be God. God is the spiritual being which creates life, is all powerful. All knowing. God is not in the realm of time, the 4th dimension. For that reason God has always been around. The main reason I think why people ask who made God is because we are so intisted in time and that to think God inherits time aswell. When really when God created the universe time was created with it. All at least time was introduced when Adam and Eve sinned against God. There was no death or decy to no time, time is a physical property and that can only be sensed when you see its effects. There is no aging or decing in heaven, in God kingdom. God has always been. And aways will.
Posted by XJohn 8 years ago
XJohn
So what made God?
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
You people need to understand that "What would a God do for a creation" and "what would evolution do?" Nothing maybe. I just read a science text book on evolution. It had very little about what started the process. Science much!!
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
"Well I am not the only clever clogs then am I?"
> I had a secret feeling you're going to be the next Einstein...
38 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by TrevorQuamily 7 years ago
TrevorQuamily
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 7 years ago
Mlorg
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 7 years ago
RazaMobizo
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by Hizashi 7 years ago
Hizashi
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by corcor27 7 years ago
corcor27
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
GodSandsTheSkepticTied
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