Is evolution true?
Debate Rounds (5)
Evolution: a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time
Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis
Another thing. While i agree that the use of the Bible is allowed, please use it as a piece of evidence that can be refuted. Not as the absolute undeniable truth
First off I believe that science supports creation and a creator.
The more we learn about life the harder it is to believe in evolution.
Since both creation and evolution have never been witnessed we can only go off evidence we find now,meaning that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creation.
2) My opponent states "The more we learn about life the harder it is to believe in evolution." However he cites no evidence nor does he evaluate on this. The fact of the matter is that if you look at DNA it becomes clear that we share quite a bit of it with other animals.
3) Evolution on a small scale has been witnessed. It is called micro-evolution and is a proven scientific fact. These small changes accumulate over millions of years into big changes
4) Assuming that Con believes in creationism (forgive me if I'm wrong) how does he respond to fossils that have been carbon dat
Macro-evolution is when living creatures evolve and changing their genetic code.
Macro-evolution has never been observed and micro-evolution is a very common occurrence.
You mentioned carbon dating. Carbon dating does not help prove evolution at all if anything it proves creation,because carbon has a half life of 5,730 years and so if only one quarter of carbon is present than the theoretical age would be 11,460 years. At 50,000 years carbon should be undetectable. So if you date things using carbon than they could only be dated within a few thousand years,not millions.
Evolution has a major flaw no non-living object can become living.
2) Since you have not refuted my assumption that you believe in creationism i must assume it's true. Your religion states that the world is 6,000 years old. Yet carbon dating has found organic materials well over 10,000 years old (The Wooly Mammoth for example)
3) Con has dropped the science argument, that should not be considered.
4) Con has dropped my DNA Argument. I extend all my points
5) The definition of evolution says nothing on the creation of life.
DNA is way to complex to come from random chance.
You say that we share quit a bit of DNA with other animals and that is true,but one would expect some similarities if we were all made by one creator.
When you look at Crytochrome C in a horse it is closer to bacteria than yeast so does this prove that horses evolved from bacteria than into yeast?
Yeast should have been the next simplest life form.
To answer a comment,Gregor Mendel the father of genetics did not show macro-evolution he studied genetics and showed that species had to stay within their genetic code, this is the opposite of macro-evolution. He also believed in God.
This does not link to evolution. Again we are going off the definition of evolution provided, which says nothing on the origin of life. For all the relevance this has, God could have placed the first bacteria on Earth, and they evolved from there. We have seen extraordinary changes in the genetic code in bacteria on a yearly basis.
As for the Horse Yeast argument, I do not understand this, or any relevance. I ask Con to rephrase this so i can better argue against it
Con has not responded to the Carbon Dating argument. I extend all of my points.
As my opponent himself stated in round two, neither creationism nor macro-evolution have been witnessed. While i agree on this, I must point out that evolution is the far more plausible of the two. Creationism hinges on a single piece of evidence. Evolution has been, and still is supported by almost every biologist on the planet, and both fossil records and real world observations.
I did answer about carbon dating in round three.
Most people say ape and humans DNA is 98% identical. This is not true,humans have twice as many genes in their Y chromosomes as apes and the structures are different. Apes would need to add 41 genes,this is impossible because apes do not have a 'gene generating system.'
So in conclusion I think that creationism is the most scientific explanation.
While this is true, I must point out that I responded to that argument, also in round three. I brought up points that Con has not refuted. Therefore since organic matter has been carbon dated to a time before Creationism was said to exist, and my opponent has not responded to it, voters should vote Pro.
As for the apes argument. His argument is flawed. Genes are measured, not in how many there are, but rather how similar genes present are to humans. We can disregard that argument.
In the comments section there is a very good explanation of genetics and how evolution is true. I will not post it due to character limits and to avoid discrediting the original poster.I will not extend this as my own argument, but i do encourage potential voters to look at it if they want a more scientific explanation of the subject.
While I thank everyone for an excellent debate, I see nothing but a Pro win
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con largely made assertions but failed to back them up adequately. Pro dismantled these effectively and established arguments that supported his position. Con did not cite any sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.