The Instigator
ignoramusslapper
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
CheetoGo
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Is evolution more reliable than creationism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ignoramusslapper
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,015 times Debate No: 62324
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

ignoramusslapper

Pro

Evolution is clearly more reliable than creationism. In fact, we have observed evolution: http://www.scientificamerican.com.... In this article, you will find that genes have been observed to evolve from mutated ones. Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence at all. Creationists rely on taking the few holes in the theory of evolution, and acting like that is proof of god. This is just not correct. While there is no way to prove there is no god, there is no way to prove that there is, and all scientific evidence shows that there most likely is no god.

While debating creationists, I have not once come across one that has legitimate evidence about the existence of some sort of god. When I give them clear evidence about evolution, the dismiss it because we don't know some things about it yet. But guess what? We don't know of ANY evidence for creationism. Do you know why we can't find holes in the evidence of creationism? Because there is no evidence.
CheetoGo

Con

Evolution: The idea that creatures become more advanced as time goes along

Creationism: The idea that a God created everything

Now, Evolution has already been proven to exist, it is called bacteria that is able to tolerate antibiotics. I am not discarding the theory that evolution is untrue. I am going against your idea that creationism is mostly UNTRUE. I have a question for you. How did evolution come to be, did a rock magically transform into a cell? What created that cell, and started the process of life on our planet. Was it some random thing, or God creating it. God never said what order he made creation in the bible. He never said "I created every animal in one second".
Debate Round No. 1
ignoramusslapper

Pro

Well no, a rock didn't "magically transform into a cell". The way that life started was when a single cell life form was synthesized by just the right elements billions of years ago, probably in a tidal pool. This is know known as the "formula for life", but it is yet to be discovered. That is how evolution started. After this, the new single cell duplicated and duplicated. After a while, there were mutations, many of them. Most of these were not beneficial, and killed the cells that had them. Some on the other hand, though, had mutations that benefitted them. These single celled organisms thrived, and those grew mutations, and those had mostly bad mutations, but some good mutations, and that happened to those mutations, and so on and so forth. That is how evolution came to be, and how it thrived. A rock couldn't have just "magically transformed into a cell", that would be as naive as creationism.

So, what evidence is there for creationism?
I look forward to your response. Thanks.
CheetoGo

Con

Well, how do we know FOR SURE, that it was born in a tidal pool. How do we KNOW that it was created "of just the right elements". So are you saying Aristotle was right? That life was made of Air, Fire, Water, and Earth? Since our body IS mostly water. But you say it came from a tidal poo, from just the right elements, how did Earth go from lava rock to water? And going back further, HOW DID THE BIG BANG HAPPEN!? How was Earth created... How was the Solar System created, the Milky way, OUR UNIVERSE!? How did it come to be. Was it REALLY just a tiny ounce of luck, the same "luck" that we find a dime on the street, actually caused the creation if US?!
What, Where, Why, Who...
HOW
Debate Round No. 2
ignoramusslapper

Pro

First, we don't know for sure that they were born in tidal pools. I said that they probably were, not that they were for sure. We know that the first creatures were synthesized of just the right elements because we have found that those are the things that humans are made of, just much more complex. Basically, the first beings were just life forms with a simpler code, which is still very complex (that is why we haven't figured how to create RNA yet). And no, I'm not saying that Aristotle was correct. As we now know, all the things you listed are made out of many separate elements, the ones that are on the periodic table, and the ones we haven't discovered yet. The earth went from lava rock to water by again, fusing the right elements. One part hydrogen, two parts oxygen. To answer your question about the big bang, we do not know how it happened, but we have even found echoes of the big bang. And for you, how did a giant being create the universe? What evidence do you have?

Thanks.
CheetoGo

Con

That, I have to say is the one dilemma with this argument.
The problem with both of them is
NO EVIDENCE.
No Evidence there was creationism.
No evidence there was.
That is why some do not believe, they say "Ha! A God! What evidence do you have!"
The truth of the matter being, there is no evidence he DIDN'T create the universe.
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation- Wikipedia
Christians think that this statement is true, and an Atheist does not believe that. So you say that life just came from the lucky break of the right elements coming together? I believe in a lot of scientific theories.
Big Bang Theory
Evolution
I think that our divine lord had created them. No a lucky break.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
The thought of something happening randomly and on its own is harder to belive in than something doing it. The question comes to what made the thing that made the big bang that causes doubt.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Ungodly evolution , which serves to onvince people, especially young minds, that all we are is just accidents of some natural occurance. Then you throw in remarks from people about how insignificant a person is. Then you throw in the mix gory video games , and legal mind altering drugs, and that is the formula for Columbine and Sandyhook.And in that is evolution more reliable that creationism to result in that outcome.
Posted by ignoramusslapper 2 years ago
ignoramusslapper
Good luck CheetoGo!
Posted by CheetoGo 2 years ago
CheetoGo
Good luck ignoramusslapper
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The best evidence of the credibility of the bible is its accuracy of human behavior. That is what the bible is all about.Now God threw the creation account in there, but he did not charge us for it. It was a freebie. But human behavior is what is utmost on the mind of God. And he sent us a manual to walk in prosperous behavior. He also told us what will bring poverty and to avoid that behavior. But he found out " many are called to a prosperous life, but few find it because of behavior."

Prosperity is many fold. Spirit, soul, body, financially, and socially.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Ignoramuss......Just develop life from non-living material. We cannot " prove " creation. It is done and over with.The burden to prove something is all on you.You wizards of smart know what elements make up a cell. Just put those elements together in proper order, then zap it with whatever you think will cause life to begin.Then you will have credibility to your belief. And bebunk ours. Which is your pure motive anyway. get rid of this god thing once and for all.
Posted by ignoramusslapper 2 years ago
ignoramusslapper
Thank you funnycn!
Posted by ignoramusslapper 2 years ago
ignoramusslapper
Thank you AltenativeDavid! I did not realize this, and I will bring it up in my next argument. Forgive my inaccuracy.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
There is nothing to observe. Life has already been created. There will be no more beginnings of life.And since they are two different things, there is nothing to compare them. The only thing you wizards of smart can do is create life now. Until you do, you are beating a dead horse. And all you can do is hope there is no creator. Especially one that holds us responsible for our conduct.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
The formula for life has yet to be discovered? We have a good idea of abiogenesis happened http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
ignoramusslapperCheetoGoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments were poor on both sides. Although, I am somewhat leaning towards pro. Con stated that evolution is "magic" and stated no evidence towards that. Same applies to con for the sources. Although, pro made somewhat convincing arguments and did state the science and process of evolution. Con simply stated it was wrong and "magic". I would give pro more points if he gave sources.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
ignoramusslapperCheetoGoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave the same reason, lack of evidence, for creationsim and evolution. Therefore neither is "more reliable"
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
ignoramusslapperCheetoGoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to argue against abiogenesis with the argument from ignorance fallacy.