The Instigator
appleciderwolf
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ImaRealMeanie
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Is God real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
ImaRealMeanie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 74385
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

ImaRealMeanie

Pro

I'm pretty sure this is the most interesting argument from the con, but oh well.

Yes sir, god does exist. And, no, I will not use the bible. I will simply use only science.

While it is true I'm not going to focus mainly on evolution, I will just simply use it as some proof. First, evolution is the theory that animals, including humans, evolved from one another all the way to tiny organisms. The problem with this theory is that it is very well only a theory, and there are many, many ways to disprove it. As an example, here's a short little thing I like to call, monkeys. Note that this isn't one of my best arguments, I want the con to actually try and fight.

First of all, Let's talk about 'Mitochondrial Eve'. In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), where a child and mother share an unbroken and direct relationship that goes on when that child (if female) has children of their own. Because of this, each mother's mother, and their mother goes all the way to the beginning to one single woman, 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

Now, do you think this is from evolution? I think not. I believe this is some proof to God's existence.
Debate Round No. 1
appleciderwolf

Con

appleciderwolf forfeited this round.
ImaRealMeanie

Pro

I extend. There is almost no point for me to argue if con shan't.
Debate Round No. 2
appleciderwolf

Con

appleciderwolf forfeited this round.
ImaRealMeanie

Pro

Vote your pro bro!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
A scientific fact is an observation (collected data) that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." However, science is always subject to correction, so it is possible for such a fact to be proven false later. Currently, the idea that the evolutionary process occurs is an observable fact; the process occurs and there is a lot of evidence.

A scientific law is the generalized description of a behavior of the natural world. At the time it is made, no exceptions will have been found to a law. A law states that something happens, but does not explain why.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. A theory is an explanation of natural phenomenon, and of the relationship of the related facts and law(s). A theory is repeatedly tested. The Theory of Evolution fits this definition.
Posted by Bonetoy 1 year ago
Bonetoy
A theory can not be a fact. If anything is a theory it has not been proven to be 100% correct. A theory may have supporting evidence, but it has not passed every test. You really need to do your research before making a statement like that.

I never said mitochondrial eve proves God's existence, but it is evidence for the Holy Bible.
Posted by BearWithMe 1 year ago
BearWithMe
Just a theory? You do know that a theory can be a fact correct? Something being a theory doesn't make it less valid for being a theory. You have not proven that this 'Mitochondrial Eve' proves god.
Posted by Bonetoy 1 year ago
Bonetoy
"i cant believe that you don't believe in evolution, you are sad"
You haven't proven anything with this statement. Instead of giving evidence as to why he is "sad" you just stated your belief. If you make a claim its up to you to provide evidence for that claim. ImaRealMeanie gave evidence against evolution. Mitochondrial Eve is valid scientific evidence. You should do your research instead of just believing what your told in school.

"It's probably that they don't really understand evolution, at least that's what I usually tell myself."
You started off good with this sentence then you just shot yourself in the foot. "that's what i usually tell myself." Again no proof or evidence has been given to counter the claim.
Posted by ImaRealMeanie 1 year ago
ImaRealMeanie
At least I don't argue with a simple 'no'.
Posted by wampe 1 year ago
wampe
It's probably that they don't really understand evolution, at least that's what I usually tell myself.
Posted by tillsandtrills 1 year ago
tillsandtrills
i cant believe that you don't believe in evolution, you are sad
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
appleciderwolfImaRealMeanieTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply said "No" for his first argument, then forfeited all other rounds. The winner here seems very clear to me.
Vote Placed by PointlessQuestions 1 year ago
PointlessQuestions
appleciderwolfImaRealMeanieTied
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: Con's Entire Argument Was The Word No.
Vote Placed by 4God 1 year ago
4God
appleciderwolfImaRealMeanieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. @applecider automatically loses because of forfeit, so conduct goes to@ImaRealMeanie. @appleciderwolf argument was really weak so obviously @ImaRealMeanie had more convincing arguments. Spelling and grammar was... okay on both sides.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
appleciderwolfImaRealMeanieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
appleciderwolfImaRealMeanieTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the majority of the debate (except Round 1, as Con was the Instigator), which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct to Pro for graciously extending their arguments through rounds. | S&G - Tie. Both sides maintained adequate and reasonable spelling and grammar. | Arguments - Pro. Con's sole 'argument' was "No", while Pro presented an effective teleological argument to demonstrate the existence of God. Thus, arguments to Pro. | Sources - Tie. Neither side used any references or citations. | 4 points to Pro. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.