The Instigator
Jacobstravail
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Origins of life Via creation not evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,759 times Debate No: 17705
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (7)

 

Jacobstravail

Pro

I want to dialog using science. Though I am a Christian, I will not be using the bible in this particular debate. I will show that organic evolution isn't possible. If this spills into macro evolution (speciation), so be it! Please, no ad Hominem attacks. Again, I'm not using the bible, so please refrain from bashing!! We'll debate that one later!
larztheloser

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and welcome to him to DDO. I will defend that evolution is possible, and can account for the origin of life. I will then go on to show why creationism is more absurd than evolution. I promise to do all this without bashing you about being a Christian or engaging in ad hominum. Not wanting an unfair advantage from an extra round, I invite my opponent to start the debate and wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Jacobstravail

Pro

Thanks a lot for the warm welcome. This dialog, I hope, will be done in truth. We do Both have a bias going into this. However, my agenda is to show the absurdity of the hypothesis of evolutionary biology.

Since were speaking about organic evolution, I want to start off with the old earth.
Supposedly, there was a hot, molten earth. Then, it rains for millions of years, this figure isn't even known for sure, and the earth cools, and as we know it, A big sea with a broth of premordial soup is now existing. Right about here, I wish I can get an agreement from my opponent, so there isn't an issue. I'll assume, unless corrected, he's ok with this summary.

Now, the earth has cooled, waters are abundant, and conditions of the earth's atmosphere are in tact. There is now an electrical reaction from lightning hitting these waters. These reactions would cause the genesis of amino acids, proteins, and then cells. You first need the building blocks of life, namely, amino acids. Now, amino acids make protein, but only if DNA tells it to. Since DNA is information of unpresedented complexity and volume, here are some questions I have...

Please tell me how we get any amino acids, the building blocks of life, to come about from non life, chance processes, without intervention from the giver of information?

How can you justify DNA to arise from this soup, and to tell the amino acids to make proteins?

Give me any Examples of an experiment that has shown this to happen. Please no assumptions.

Please tell me where did the DNA come from, and how the amino acids were told to produce proteins.

Give me an example that is observable, testable, and unfalsifiable, of non life producing life.
larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for his insightful questions.

First, about the origin of amino acids. Some things are necessary for them to pop up. The first is water, the second hydrogen. The Earth had more than enough of those, as my opponent's history seems to agree with. The third is heat, which can be found at any hot spring. The fourth and fifth are methane and ammonia (these are disputed). This has been done repeatedly in multiple experiments, but the most famous was the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment (http://www.chem.duke.edu...). Since then some scientists have argued that the atmosphere was not rich in methane and ammonia, so Miller took the chemicals formed in a volcanic eruption (which would also explain the heat) instead - carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide. This formed 22 types of amino acids as well as a number of other useful compounds for life (http://www.sciencemag.org...).

There is another possibility - amino acids could have dropped here from a meteor. There exist numerous and quite complex models for how the amino acids got on the meteor, which you can read about here: http://www.wiley-vch.de.... There is also a surprising amount of evidence for this- for instance, the Murchison meteorite contained amino acids when it fell (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Note that neither of these alternatives requires divine intervention.

Second, about the arrival of DNA. There is now much evidence that DNA was not necessary for early life, because RNA can act as a substitute (http://www.accessexcellence.org...). DNA probably arose later, as it is more complex than RNA, but it isn't too difficult to turn RNA into DNA. Strangely enough, you can get RNA using nothing but warm water (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). RNA has also been created using a variety of chemicals available in early Earth (http://arstechnica.com...). A nifty effect of this is that proteins are easily and naturally created. Even today, RNA is used in almost all cells to create proteins.

Third, examples of experiments have already been given. Note the lack of divine intervention.

Fourth, an example of non-life producing life? Planet Earth. Once it had no life, now it has life. I know I'm begging the question, but scientists are astonishingly close to creating basic life-forms without divine intervention. It won't occur in the wild anymore because there's too much oxygen out there now (we had this big oxygen explosion thing) but it can be done in the lab.

This brings me to my single (though admittedly complex) question for you- do you have any observable, testable, and unfalsifiable evidence that a deity exists? My argument is that in the absence of scientific evidence for God's existence, we cannot believe creationism from a scientific standpoint. Since this debate is to be judged on scientific criteria, my opponent cannot win the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Jacobstravail

Pro

I want to respond to the claims presented. I then will answer any questions, and then counter. I am sure this debate can go on forever considering the topic's relevance.

First, I want to point out that you need over 100 amino acids to make a protein. I believe you said 22 were made?
http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu...

Second, Notice the use of fiction and uncertainty. My opponent says, "some things are necessary for them(amino acids) to pop up". Pop up? I will leave that fairy tale alone, for now. My opponent uses the Miller-Urey experiment to prove his point. He correctly identifies that Stanley Miller's experiment consisted of water, hydrogen, heat, methane, and ammonia in the early earth's atmosphere. It amuses me that anyone uses Stanley Miller experiment. I will give you a few reasons to never give any validity to his experiment.
1)Stanley Miller used the wrong mixture of gases in the apparatus. He used, as my opponent said, water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. He later found out that these were not likely in the early earth's atmosphere. An example would be that if methane was really in the earth's early atmosphere, then scientists should see it stuck to deep layers of ancient sedimentary clays. It is not there! He then went on to use the more plausible mixture of gases from the early earth atmosphere. When he did so, his experiment failed. http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...

2)Stanley Miller was careful not to use oxygen. A.I. Oparin, who fathered chemical evolution, knew oxygen in the atmosphere would prevent evolution from occurring. Like Miller, he deliberately did not include oxygen in his experiment. As deep as we dig into antiquities, oxidized rocks are abundant, suggesting an oxygen rich atmosphere in the early earth.

3)Stanley Miller's experiment, in fact, points to a creator. He deceived the scientific world by making a trap door in the apparatus (a chemist's trick) to hide the amino acids and sugars he made. He knew that the same electricity he was using to combine the gases would also destroy the very amino acids he was attempting to make. How deceptive is this? You're supposed to be showing these gases making life by themselves. Instead, intelligence is being used to try to make plausible conditions for life. And even then, he is eons away from a protein. How does this prove a creator? It always takes intervention from intelligence.

4)The books don't tell you that Stanley Miller produced a combination of left and right handed amino acids. Problem? If there is just ONE right handed amino acid, the whole system fails. NO LIFE. Life originates from left handed amino acids alone.
"The proteins in living cells are made of just certain kinds of amino acids: those that are "alpha" (short) and "left-handed". Miller's "primordial soup" contained many long… amino acids in equal numbers of both right and left-handed forms. Problem: just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function. What Miller actually produced was a seething brew of potent poisons that would absolutely destroy any hope for life."
(Dr. Gary Parker, Creation Facts of Life Page 20)

Next, I want you to see the language of my opponent's statement. Notice the absurdities that allude to science fiction. Were the aliens that sent the meteors to earth, right handed or left handed? =)

"There is another possibility - amino acids could have dropped here from a meteor. There exist numerous and quite complex models for how the amino acids got on the meteor…"
"Note that neither of these alternatives requires divine intervention."

This is what my opponent wrote. Rather than quoting all of it, I will copy it and then respond.

"Second, about the arrival of DNA. There is now much evidence that DNA was not necessary for early life, because RNA can act as a substitute (http://www.accessexcellence.org...;

RNA is not DNA. The substitutions you see where RNA replaces DNA is in viruses. DNA is literally the blueprint of life. No act of RNA can substitute the role of DNA. DNA and RNA simultaneously must be present. One cannot do its role without the other. DNA contains the genetic codes to make RNA and the RNA, in turn, then contains the codes for the primary sequence of amino acids to make proteins. http://www.elmhurst.edu...
Question still unanswered, where did the DNA come from? Maybe a comet sent it?
Again, look at his words.

"Fourth, an example of non-life producing life? Planet Earth. Once it had no life, now it has life. I know I'm begging the question, but scientists are astonishingly close to creating basic life-forms without divine intervention. "

Two points about this statement. He says scientists are close to creating basic life forms…That is my point. It takes outside intelligence, in a lab, using pre-existing substances to make life. Sounds like some intervention to me. And he contradicts all he has said before: that the building blocks of life were made by natural processes, but here he says scientists are close. Which is it?

"It won't occur in the wild anymore because there's too much oxygen out there now (we had this big oxygen explosion thing) but it can be done in the lab."
As even an evolutionary scientist A.I. Oparin admitted, oxygen was present in the early earth. I gave proof above. The ancient rocks attests to this point.

Conclusion to your comments
You have not demonstrated life coming from nonlife according to the scientific method. You have only made assumptions without facts to back them up. This debate is one you cannot win with pseudo-science fairy tales.

"This brings me to my single (though admittedly complex) question for you- do you have any observable, testable, and unfalsifiable evidence that a deity exists? My argument is that in the absence of scientific evidence for God's existence, we cannot believe creationism from a scientific standpoint. Since this debate is to be judged on scientific criteria, my opponent cannot win the debate."

I made a big error, I think. The question you posed above has a different debate all over it. I am willing to dialog this, however. I am new to this site and didn't word the subject clearly. I noticed the subject of my debate was "origins of life via creation, not evolution." I didn't mean to argue the science and the theology in this debate; this would just take too long. There is so much to cover in the science alone. Since it was my error, I will be brief in answering your question.

There are many proofs of God's existence. Using science isn't a problem to theists.
If we have two plausible world views that are most likely to have occurred, I am sure we can get somewhere with this debate. I am pretty sure you agree that the world and all in it is either: 1) by the hand of a divine creator; or unguided, unintelligent natural processes. Those two are the most plausible hypotheses. I can also prove that not all truths can be tested by the scientific method.
1)Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2)The fine tuning of the universe
3)Existence of morality, love, justice, knowing of impending death, and mere consciousness
4)The major problems in biological, chemical, cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution of life has proven the only other plausible answer to the world is a creator.
As I stated this is a different debate. I would be glad to dialog about this. You can test my points by science.
Conclusion:
You have not demonstrated that non-life produces life. Then, you invoke it by saying scientists are working on it. This is my point. It takes intelligence to make life.
larztheloser

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for opening his substantive. First, let's look at what he had to say:

1. 100 amino acids = 1 protein
If this were true, I suppose humans must be non-living. You will have probably learnt in primary school (though you can refresh your memory here: http://kidshealth.org...) humans create protein using only 22 amino acids (2 of which are disputed). Of these 12 are generally accepted to be non-essential (http://www.nutramed.com...). Thankfully this is not true.

It seems my opponent has simply misread his source. In order to create proteins, amino acids bind themselves to RNA in "chains." The length of these chains usually is about 100, but the chain is made up of only those same 22 (your source states 20 because 2 are disputed). If voters read my opponent's source carefully, they will note that this is in fact what it says.

So the 22 amino acids produced were more than enough to start forming proteins.

2. Stanley-Miller was wrong
2.1 He used methane
I've already told you that methane (and ammonia for that matter) are disputed. That's why he repeated the experiment with the products of a volcanic eruption (as I told you). Later scientists have shown that substituting in oxygen gives much the same result (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

2.2 He controlled for oxygen
This isn't an unreasonable assumption. Oxygen is a wild gas, full of chemical energy, and it likes to bond with things. One thing it likes to bond with is carbon, and under typical conditions this forms carbon dioxide. My opponent will note that earlier rocks contain lots of carbon, which supports an atmosphere not full of free oxygen, but carbon dioxide. Upon learning of this finding, Miller revised his experiment using the products of a volcanic eruption, making sure to add some carbon dioxide into the mix.

2.3 He put in a trap door
The trap was simply to isolate the water with amino acids from the rest of the water (not a chemist's trick, as L amino acids don't react with water). In the real world, the amino acids he made would have simply gone back into the water. Electricity would only have destroyed the acids if it had stuck around for long, which lightning doesn't. The only role of electricity is to induce a chemical reaction. There are multiple things that can do that.

2.4 Produced type L and D acids
The simple answer is that D acids dissolve in water, L acids don't as easily (http://www.newscientist.com...). Had miller not put in that trap door he would have only observed the L acids alone (but he would have had to bother going through the whole flask of water instead of taking the acid as it was produced). I should add that the meteor theory does not have this problem, because circularly polarised radiation could easily destroy one type and leave the other intact

3. "Aliens" sent meteors to Earth
I would have thought it pretty clear, but aliens do not send meteors to Earth. I did not mention (or believe in) aliens and this is a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. Meteors are created when two asteroids collide. Meteors get amino acids not from aliens, but from the natural process of certain random atoms floating about in outer space smashing into the meteor. If my opponent had read my source, he would have noticed that this is actually statistically likely. This has, indeed, been confirmed by the empirical evidence of meteors arriving here carrying amino acids.

4. RNA is not DNA
The only major role of DNA is to store genetic information. As my source states, scientists have proven that RNA is able to do this too. While this would mean that "life" would not have been technically "living" at first, I've already told you it's trivial for RNA to turn into DNA (proven in this paper, sorry I couldn't find a full-text copy but you can read the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., for an overview of the process see http://en.wikipedia.org...).

5. Scientists close
This is an exercise in debunking false dichotomies. Life can be created by outside intelligence, but that does not (logically) mean that it cannot be created without outside intelligence. The building blocks of life may have been created naturally, but that does not mean scientists cannot be close to creating the building blocks of life artificially. I hope I'm understanding you correctly here - if not, please articulate.

6. Too much oxygen now
First, now we have so much oxygen there is not enough carbon to bond to, so we get free oxygen. That's the difference.

Now on to my own contention...

Creationism is absurd because it requires something that isn't scientifically validatable. All your answers are true - there is a need for the causation of the universe, the laws of the universe do appear fine-tuned, and so on. There are many explanations for these things. God is one of them, but we can't test that God is the one which is right. If my opponent can prove God is the only possible cause of the universe, for instance, then of course I will believe in God. There are, however, many things that could have caused it, and it's wrong to leap at one of them as being right without evidence or, better still, proof. The existance of problems does not provide evidence for one possible solution. The burden of proof is on you (both by parsimony and Russel's teapot) to provide the evidence for.

The God hypothesis is, furthermore, scientifically falsifiable. According to noted author and brilliant (Christian apologist) debater William Lane Craig, God must be "perfect (if He were to be imperfect in any respect His existence would be imperfect)" (http://www.leaderu.com...). Two qualities of perfection are omniscience and free will. These are, however, contradictory, as knowing the future prevents you from having a truely free future choice. Another way to falsify God is to start from the quality of omnipotence. Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it? The very notion of unlimited power is flawed.

My opponent has failed to prove the most basic of his assumptions. I have defended all steps of the evolutionary model. I look forward to hearing my opponent's final arguments and wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 3
Jacobstravail

Pro

"1. 100 amino acids = 1 protein
If this were true, I suppose humans must be non-living. You will have probably learnt in primary school (though you can refresh your memory here: http://kidshealth.org......) humans create protein using only 22 amino acids (2 of which are disputed). Of these 12 are generally accepted to be non-essential (http://www.nutramed.com......). Thankfully this is not true."

You're letting your bias interfere with actual science. It is specualtive, and dioshonest. Miller in his original experiment made thirteen, not twenty (two) amino acids. You still haven't dealt with right vs left handed amino acid problem. Again, right handed amino acids, just one, cause catastrophe to any life that mixes with left handed amino acids. That is what he brewed up, poison. Miller himself admitted his experiment failed. His newer experiments using correct atmospheric conditions also failed.

"2. Stanley-Miller was wrong
2.1 He used methane
I've already told you that methane (and ammonia for that matter) are disputed. That's why he repeated the experiment with the products of a volcanic eruption (as I told you). Later scientists have shown that substituting in oxygen gives much the same result (http://en.wikipedia.org......)."

Then why did you use his flawed experiment as proof? Your source isn't saying what you say it is. Oxygen would have oxidated the very amino acids. As I stated several times. Please see my sources in round three.


"2.3 He put in a trap door
The trap was simply to isolate the water with amino acids from the rest of the water (not a chemist's trick, as L amino acids don't react with water). In the real world, the amino acids he made would have simply gone back into the water. Electricity would only have destroyed the acids if it had stuck around for long, which lightning doesn't. The only role of electricity is to induce a chemical reaction. There are multiple things that can do that."

You are being deceptive, and you know it. If Stanley Miller didn't hide the amino acids, they would have been destroyed by the same means he was using to make them. You are merely responding, and not correctly defending your claims. see: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-origin.asp


Final Conclusion

FACT: My opponent never showed any life being formed from non life. He has had no answers to the major problems that evolutionists admit.

FACT: My opponent claims scientists are close to making life in the lab. This point derives two conclusions. You admit life has NOT yet been made. And, it takes INTELLIGENCE to make life. That is my whole point in this debate.

FACT: The scientific method was disgraced in my opponents response. He used failed experiments, myth, and unproven science to make objections without relevance to the facts I presented.

To my opponent: Thank you for your time. It was fun. I will send you a friend request.

To the voters: There is much more evidence that I have to show evolution can't happen. Example: The minimal gene set copncept. I will leave it to the voters. In this debate, it is clear who had the most evidence without invoking myths, fabrications and fairy tales. Both sides have the same evidence. It is your starting point of how you view life that depicts your conclusions. If evolution is true, death is the hero. Darwinism has a morality level of a hitler. Lets consume the weak, so the strong survive. If God is real, he originally created all things good. If it is good, death isn't the hero. Who's your hero?

Albert Einstein, who did not believe in a personal God, admitted "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
http://news.softpedia.com...
larztheloser

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent sincerely for this excellent discussion. I consider it an honor everytime I debate somebody with a non-mainstream view of science - that takes a lot of guts!

In my view, this debate comes down to two key issues:

1. Are there any reasonable objections to the evolution model?
2. Is the creationist model scientifically tenable?

I will address these two issues. First, what reasonable objections have been raised?

In the last round, my opponent offered two totally new objections. Neither were backed up by analysis or sources. Nonetheless, I will be kind enough to offer an answer to each. The minimial gene set concept is only a concept because nobody knows what the minimal gene set is. Thousands of experiments to find the magic number of genes have proved futile, and until they do, it's wrong to assert that amount of DNA could not have been produced by reverse transcription.

Death is the hero if evolution is true - but is that not also true of religion? Is it not through the denial of life that you enter God's kingdom? Was it not through the death of Jesus that the world was saved? Death is the constant theme of the bible. I believe we can have morality by going beyond our past and focusing on our present. Darwinists have been responsible for far fewer wars and deaths than creationists. I don't mean to bash the bible as being immoral, but rather to explain that religion and darwinism can be just as moral as each other. I consider myself to be a moral person, but I don't need God to do the right thing.

Now for the points that were properly analysed in the debate. First, that Miller made only 13 acids. Had my opponent read my source, he would have noticed that after Miller's death, scientists re-analysed his original, sealed samples and found 9 extra amino acids. They then repeated Miller's experiment and found that Miller had simply made a sampling error, and that his experiment was more successful than he had thought. By a cruel twist of fate, Miller had died only months earlier, and so never learnt just how right he was.

Second, that I haven't addressed that L vs D amino acid problem (only proteins are left and right handed - the amino acids producing L and R proteins are called L and D respectively). Actually, yes I did. See last round, point 2.4.

Third, that oxygen would have oxydated the amino acids. This is not true if the oxygen is bonded with carbon, because oxygen's carbon bond is very strong. Experiments with carbon bonded oxygen, including Miller's experiment, ended up getting the same result - lots of amino acids. Voters can read my source for themselves and see that this is exactly what it says (note: CO2 = carbon dioxide). In what way is this not a "correct" defence?

Fourth, that I didn't show life arising from non-life. The problem is that you don't want me to show that, or else you'd jump up and scream "I told you we were designed!" If we recreate the conditions that existed on Earth in that time, we can produce life. Just because intelligence can create those conditions, doesn't mean intelligence did create those conditions when life first started on Earth.

As you can see, the evolution model has stood up to all of my opponent's attacks (including the many he dropped in the last round). I have used only a single attack to discredit his - an attack that has been marvellously successful, as my opponent made no attempt to refute it in the last round.

It has been said by my opponent that it's pretty clear which side was based on fairy tales. Evolution is a theory based entirely on evidence and experiment. No reference is made to God or anything else that might possibly be a myth. Your entire theory is based on something you have not been able to produce scientific evidence for. You rely on faith in a story, whereas I do not. I, meanwhile, have provided two points of unrefuted analysis that God is only a fairytale. Since my opponent has done nothing to defend the most basic of his contentions, he must lose the debate.

The resolution is negated. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cactuar24 2 years ago
Cactuar24
Pro was suppose to make the agrument that creation is more plassable then evolution

he failed, and it seems (as i have seen with all creationist) that he has only made a poor attempt to revoke evolution
Posted by hungryman 2 years ago
hungryman
@Jacobstravail: "Is it ridiculous to assume we came from soup? I thought so."

It is only ridiculous of your ego makes it so.
Posted by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
Alex, you're basing your assumption on the premise that RNA is replicated from a single strand of DNA, though the history of evolution has at least proven that incorrect...

The RNA world hypothesis, which is widely supported, postulates that RNA-bearing organisms (like retroviruses) preceded that of DNA...There is evidence to support this hypothesis, considering the fact that RNA has properties similiar to that of DNA, including storing, transmiting genetic information, aiding in protein synthesis, acting as biological catalysts, and so on.
Posted by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
Sorry for the slow comment-reply. What makes me an atheist specifically is the omnipotence paradox. All of the resolutions I've ever heard are paradoxes themselves. To a lesser extent also, the problem of evil and the free will paradox have had an impact on my thinking, but the big hurdle is the omnipotence paradox.
Posted by VocMusTcrMaloy 2 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
Larz, to what logical inconsistencies are you referring?
Posted by alex0828 2 years ago
alex0828
Larz, check out my "God is Real" debate, basically my response to you right now is my round 2 argument in that debate.
Posted by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
The reason I'm an atheist is because I believe God is logically inconsistent, not because I haven't seen God. I believe Alaska exists even though I've never been to Alaska. I do so based on the trust of thousands of cartographers whose maps of the world I have seen, the trust in the thousands of TV networks that have pictured "Alaska," and the trust of other people I know personally who have visited the place. Thus it is inductively logical that Alaska exists. If it were not for the logical absurdity of God, I might be inclined to believe in religion by the masses that do.

When scientists make a discovery, it undergoes a lengthy review process by other scientists. It often undergoes further reviews by journal editors. All these people confirmed that the study is true. Furthermore it was widely reported in academic circles, and published both in top scientific journals and on the internet. It is inductively logical to accept their findings, unless there is evidence to doubt them. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such evidence.
Posted by alex0828 2 years ago
alex0828
Larz, you use the word prove. Since you are an atheist, that means you need to see things to believe it. Were you in the room with the scientists as they proved this?
Posted by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
Jacobs - and where was your evidence why not during the debate. Again, I went to all the trouble of finding peer-reviewed studies by top scientists proving the point, and you dismiss it as "faith-based" without basis. Your discrediting of their work is based on faith alone, while their work was based on experiment and investigation. They proved you don't need DNA. You proved nothing.
Posted by Jacobstravail 2 years ago
Jacobstravail
Alex you're right. The faith the biased scientists that say this Is amazing. I think you need to realize RNA will not have, or turn into the function of DNA. You need both to do what you claim it does.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Jacobstravail appeared to be fervent in his displayal of his non mainstream view of science, but his arguments were filtered with attacks on his opponent's characters ['pseudo fairy tales'?] and he failed to successfully rebut larze's arguments (nor fulfill his burden in showing the existence of intelligence design in evolution) and had less reliable sources.
Vote Placed by wierdman 2 years ago
wierdman
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: ,
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 2 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The main objective for the CON is to reject everything that the PRO says, and he did that effectively. The PRO didn't have a clear understanding of the resolution and didn't make a relative case as such to the resolution. He also shows to misunderstand his own evidence. therefore, I vote CON
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's objection to evolution is not an objection to evolution, by default he fails.
Vote Placed by VocMusTcrMaloy 2 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to show that life can be generated from non-life. Pro's mishap on the 22 amino acids is why I'm giving Con the reliable sources vote.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden to prove that organic biogeniesis was impossible. He offered no affirmative case. He also failed to show that Con's scenario was impossible. Pro used sources con proved unreliable. Pro came close to a conduct penalty for using "fairy tales" and the like, but since he didn't attack Con directly, it's acceptable.
Vote Placed by kohai 2 years ago
kohai
JacobstravaillarztheloserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro droped many arguments. Pro never responded to the awesome falsofocation of god by con.