The Instigator
TheHistoryProfessor
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
RogueAngel
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

Pro evolution or Con and why?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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.
Started: 7/16/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,570 times Debate No: 17532
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

TheHistoryProfessor

Con

As a creationist and you an atheist I was wondering what are your views on evolution vs creation. If you are for evolution, what facts do you have that can support your views?
RogueAngel

Pro

I would like to thank TheHistoryProfessor for challenging me to this debate. As my first debate on this site I hope that we can both learn something from our exchange.

I will be defending one thing: the fact of evolution. There is an important distinction between the fact of evolution and the theory(s) of evolution. Facts are what we know about our world and theories are what we use to explain facts. Lets take gravity for an example. The fact of gravity is understood as objects will fall. There are however many different theories that attempt to explain how this occurs. Even if one of these theories is disproved and another replaces it the fact still remains: objects will continue to fall. Stephen J. Gould writes:

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."[1]

But I simply cannot state that evolution or gravity is a fact, I must give empirical evidence for this claim.

Before I present my case I should probably make it clear what I (and most biologists) mean by evolution. I understand evolution to be the process in which plants and animals develop and transform (or evolve) to adapt to their surrounding environment. It should be noted that this definition makes no claims about how the process occurs, it just makes a claim that the process does occur.

My first argument for evolution is that all animals must have a parent. It has been centuries since people have thought that beetles are born from in-organic materials such as dung. There is absolutely no evidence that animals spontaneously appear. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had its origin elsewhere because any such origin for living things must start in another organism. There is no evidence whatsoever that inorganic things can create living creatures.

Many creatures are not only extremely similar, but also very different. Lets take bears for example. Polar bears have evolved (or adapted) to their environment so their body can survive. They have transparent fur that looks white because of the reflection off the snow and they are also much larger and stronger than your average black bear. This is because their body was forced to adapt to their environment.

My final proof for evolution is that simple plants and animals existed long before complex ones. The evidence we have gathered from fossils is overwhelming. As the fossils get more recent, the complexity of the animals in question also increase. This shows that animals are evolving over time to adapt to their environment. This is overwhelming evidence against the objection that vertebrates spontaneously appeared.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and almost every biologist in the world is in agreement with me. Most would even call people who don't believe in it foolish. The arguments are intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation.[2]

I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.

---

- [1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
- [2] http://records.viu.ca... (Most of my points were also taken from this essay)
Debate Round No. 1
TheHistoryProfessor

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for excepting my challenge. I am also new to this site and appreciate you taking your time to debate with me.

" You stated that facts are what we know about our world and theories are what we use to explain facts."

So as I understand it you believe that evolution is a fact and the evolutionary theory is one way to explain that fact. I will now give the reasons I believe evolution is not fact and science supports this.

The definition of science is: The systematic knowledge of the physical and material world gained through observation and experimentation.

First you cannot compare gravity to evolution simply because gravity can be observed and experimented with. Evolution cannot be observed or experimented with even to this day, at least not five of the six different types of evolution.
1. Cosmic evolution (The Big Bang)
2. Chemical evolution (hydrogen and helium to every other chemical on the periodic table)
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution (stars and planets)
4. Organic evolution (which is life and our main topic in this debate)
5. Macro evolution (species to species evolution)
6. Micro evolution (which is evolution within a species, which evolutionist and creationist agree on)

You are being very vague when you say evolution is the process in which plants and animals develop and transform to adapt to there surrounding environment. That is not at all what evolution at least in the scientific community means. See the problem is and always will be that evolution can explain the end of the theory but never the beginning.

You also state that living things must start in another organism but once again the first organism just appeared. So if as you stated that inorganic things cannot create living creatures. Basically nothing can't create something in reality. That is exactly what evolutionist believe that everything we know today came from nothing(cosmic evolution and organic evolution).

Going to the bear you discuss, that is micro evolution which is not debated on, creationist and evolutionist agree with micro evolution. You also cannot say that almost every biologist in the world is in agreement with you because that is a false statement. The two theories on the beginning of life are evolution and creation if you do not believe in one you have to believe in the other.

I look forward to here from you!
RogueAngel

Pro

I would like to thank TheHistoryProfessor for his reply but it appears as if he agrees with evolution (partly). He states:

"So as I understand it you believe that evolution is a fact and the evolutionary theory is one way to explain that fact. I will now give the reasons I believe evolution is not fact and science supports this."

Unfortunately my opponent gives no explanation for his claim. The only argument he gave against evolution was the definition of science and some rebuttals to my arguments. Not only do his rebuttals do not work but his definition of science only helps my case. Evolution has been examined in many different things but for this debate I will use protein as an example and then move on to responses to his objections.

Proteins are made of up 20 amino acids There are many different ways of determining the origins or proteins such as sequencing. If two separate proteins have similar sequences then there is an extremely high likelihood that these proteins came from a common ancestor. Please take a look at the pictures within my sources[1][2]. Notice the physical similarities between the three proteins in both pictures? All of these proteins (as shown) have very similar functions and are from completely different animals but have evolved from a common ancestor. In the second photo the one on the far right has no sequence commonalities with the other two but it has obviously evolved from a common ancestor. The picture itself is worth 1000 words as far as evolution is concerned. I haven't even gotten to the best part. The chances that all of those occurred independently through mutations alone is 10^20, or one in one hundred billion billion[3].

Now, strictly speaking evolution is concerned with whole organisms but this is just a helpful guide showing evolution occur at the protein level. I can use protein similarities to show evolution occurring over millions of years.

As far as your objections go, I wouldn't call it being vague but I would call it being simple. I gave a simple definition of what evolution is and you give no justification on how I was being vague or why it is wrong. You also never explained how evolution cannot explain the beginning and simply asserted it. Moreover, even if it cannot explain the beginning this does not mean that evolution is therefore false.

I never once stated that the first organism just 'appeared'. I simply stated that the first organism came into existence (probably from some organic material like mold) and evolved into the much more complex organisms we have today.
The bear analogy still applies and you have unfortunately agreed with it. Micro evolution is still evolution in the end and you end up agreeing with the position you are against. You have not explained your position yet and have done nothing but attack and agree with mine. Now you only have one round to defeat everything I have said, provide a good reason for why we shouldn't accept evolution and elaborate on why you are a creationist. I suggest you use this last round wisely.

---
[1] - http://img849.imageshack.us...
[2] - http://img842.imageshack.us...
[3] - Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Chapter 7, Sixth edition(http://img818.imageshack.us...)
Debate Round No. 2
TheHistoryProfessor

Con

Thank you for all the information but let me give you my views in another way.

You say evolution has been examined in many different ways, but proteins maybe or having a high likelihood of having a common ancestors doesn't give facts to evolution. You are still assuming things happen a certain way.

Take a look at doctor Robert Gentry's work with polonium isotopes found in granite rock. Doctor Robert Gentry found polonium isotopes in the basement layers of granite rock all over the world. polonium isotopes only last for a few minuets before breaking down. If evolution is correct and the earth started as molten rock and slowly cooled, then these polonium isotopes could not have been found in granite rock to date.

Also the cells found in our bodies have organelles which act as the cells organs. Cells are made up of hundreds of these organelles, which without even one, the cell could not function(irreducible complexity). In Origin of Species Darwin wrote " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could possibly have not been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
Definition of organelles: specific subunit within a cell that has a specific function, and is usually separately enclosed within its own lipid bilayer.
Organ: Confined functional unit within an organism

I believe this is strong evidence that evolution is false on many levels.

My cell information comes from research done by Biochemist Michael Behe and his arguments for "irreducible complexity". Also Dr. Robert Gentry and his discovery of polonium in granite rocks.

www.infidels.org
www.halos.com
RogueAngel

Pro

I would like to thank TheHistoryProfessor for this edifying experience but unfortunately he hasn't addressed my arguments in the last round. He said my protein example doesn't give facts to evolution but fails to elaborate on this. I showed that all protein comes from a common ancestor and he has failed to muster a legitimate response. My argument stands.

Unfortunately my opponent has neglected to cite sources for his claims that disprove evolution. I am unable to properly research the claims because of this and thus his arguments have no merit. I urge my opponent to cite sources to his scientific arguments or his opponents can simply defeat them by dismissing them (like I am now). You see, what you gave me was not an argument but an incredibly bias opinion from a creationist. You cannot say someones opinion as evidence.

In summary, almost all of my arguments have went unchallenged and the only challenge to them were mere assertions. TheHistoryProfessor has failed to establish a more plausible theory and none of his sources were cited. I was not able to properly respond to any of his scientific claims because of this.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
"stupid christians are stupid."--Izbo's voting reason.

And apparently foolish atheists are foolish, and ignorant as well.
Posted by RogueAngel 2 years ago
RogueAngel
@twsurber,

Yes, it is. Many people believe that very thing.
Posted by twsurber 2 years ago
twsurber
Interesting question from a gentleman who is not only a scientist and medical doctor, but also a believer in Christ Jesus: "Is it possible that God used evolution in some degree"? (Dr. Woodrow McKay)
Posted by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
My apologies to Con for the comments of Izbo10. If you stick around long enough you will see why he has developed the reputation of DDO's biggest idiot and troll. In fact, that reminds me:
http://www.debate.org...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was too convincing, but Pro managed to muster a better argument by noting the actual evidence for the evolutionary theory; Con on the other hand equivocated, failed to respond in depth (for example, noting that his opponent's definition of evolution was "vague" but failing to bridge such a notion to his own challenges to the modern evolutionary theory). Moreover, Con did not provide a scientific analysis, which proved fatal since such a topic warrants a far more detailed discussion.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 2 years ago
Dimmitri.C
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb.
Vote Placed by Darknes 2 years ago
Darknes
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: What Double_R said.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 could have made a stronger case but Con had no legitimate rebuttals and failed to affirm his own resolution. Evolution is a scientific subject that requires scientific analysis which Con did not provide.
Vote Placed by izbo10 2 years ago
izbo10
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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: stupid christians are stupid.
Vote Placed by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con uses Hovind's arguments, misunderstands 'observation', and uses no citations. Pro puts forth a case (not great) which Con struggles with and does not overcome.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 gave a terrible description of what evolution is, but at least offered some evidence for it. Con seemed totally confused at times as to what the debate was about. Did not really attack Pro's case and in fact all but conceded in the second round by accepting micro evolution. Not a great quality debate, but pro clearly had it.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 2 years ago
ReformedArsenal
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I agree with BA's assessment. What he said.
Vote Placed by BruteApologia 2 years ago
BruteApologia
TheHistoryProfessorRogueAngelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No real argument from Con and no sources were provided, which is crucial to a debate on evolution. Pro clearly came out on top here.
Research this debate: Michael Behe