The Instigator
Unity
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FrackJack
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

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 3 votes the winner is...
FrackJack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 33074
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Unity

Pro

I would like to begin by explaining my contention. The world did not come about by a random explosion of particles, but was rather placed and planned specifically by a Divine figure.
The question in the forefront, without all its details, is how is it possible that a random explosion caused something so detailed and perfect? How is it that human intellect of today in its complete, original origin evolved from random happenings of nothingness that just happened to be there with no source?
As I see it, a Divine being is boundless and therefore able to bring about such things. Besides, mankind had been believing in such a Being for thousands of years before the ideas of revolution came along in the 18th century.

I hope my opponent will be able to send me clearer knowledge on this topic in a most friendly manner.
FrackJack

Con

I accept. The BOP is shared.
Debate Round No. 1
Unity

Pro

One of the main things used to bring about the ideas of evolution are fossils. But how do fossils prove evolution? There is no fact that these fossils reproduced. There is no certainty that every group of creatures had any offspring. So how is it possible to say the evolved through their children until we have what we have today? It is mere assumptions that creatures have a common ancestor.
If we, as humans, originated from mere molecules that just happened to come together to form intelligence, it just happened that there was a series of genetic mutations, how can we trust our senses? They came from what this generation would classify as nothing, not in the literal meaning of the term. And is we can not trust our senses we are not able to trust science- which is what came up with the theory of evolution.
It is more realistic to say we came from a common designer with greater intelligence then us.
FrackJack

Con

One of the main things used to bring about the ideas of evolution are fossils. But how do fossils prove evolution? There is no fact that these fossils reproduced.

What?

There is no certainty that every group of creatures had any offspring.

It doesn't matter. In fact, it's just foolish to think that asnimals would just not want to have children.


So how is it possible to say the evolved through their children until we have what we have today? It is mere assumptions that creatures have a common ancestor.

A assumption.


If we, as humans, originated from mere molecules that just happened to come together to form intelligence, it just happened that there was a series of genetic mutations, how can we trust our senses?

It was a slow process. It taken millions of years. Animals are not as dumb as you think. Why are you bringing senses in this?
And is we can not trust our senses we are not able to trust science- which is what came up with the theory of evolution.

False.

It is more realistic to say we came from a common designer with greater intelligence then us.

You still havent proved this.
Debate Round No. 2
Unity

Pro

I would like to first comment that due to time restrictions I will not be going into depth on my points. Please bare with me.
I would also like to thank the contender for his reply. Tip: Watch your grammatical errors. Your comments are also cut a bit short. If possible, I request of the contender to use more than simply "what?" or "false".

Addressing Con:
You picked me up on saying assumptionS. However this is correct there are numerous theorieS within the theory of evolution. Besides, you yourself are assuming. "It's foolish to think that animals would just not want to have children". I never said that, nor was it implied. "Animals are not as dumb as you think". How is it possible for you to know in which class of wisdom I personally classify different animals? You took my words to mean this so you could prove me wrong. Or under a non-judgmental eye you are very concerned for animals' feelings. You are a scientist at heart :).

To prove G-d's existence on a simple level one needs only to turn to look at his surroundings. The complexity and beauty of our planet- the Earth, the need for a substance such as water, the works of the eye, the DNA code. You are to tell me these are things that just so happened to work out? If you walked into an art gallery, and saw the most detailed painting of a large village (such as this perhaps: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...), would you believe me if I told you that I just spilled a box of paints and it happened by itself? No, i is a beautiful piece of art!

Other points include the following:
Scientific theories do not explain the begging of the universe, but the faith in G-d does. Who created time and space?
Evolution i unable to override the set laws of nature, which work so perfectly together. G-d's presence, which is most obvious through holy men and miracles, show that there is spirituality that goes beyond nature.
Following scientific theories there is no purpose to the world. So why can I not kill myself? Why is it wrong to be immoral? And who is even to say what is wrong and right anyway? Man kind needs G-d to stay away from corruption as well as give life purpose. (I am not saying that atheists have no purpose in their personal lives.)
Knowledge of G-d has been passed down through the generations for several thousand years, if not forever. During the period of the Enlightenment, a few hundred years ago, philosophers chose to pull the blind on Divine Being and thought up their own theories(, which came about before the major proofs did).

I do not doubt evolution but I see faults in the Theory of Evolution. The best way to learn things as this is to only accept facts during your study period and think rationally.
FrackJack

Con


Other points include the following:

Scientific theories do not explain the begging of the universe, but the faith in G-d does.

Who created time and space?
Evolution i unable to override the set laws of nature, which work so perfectly together. G-d's presence, which is most obvious through holy men and miracles, show that there is spirituality that goes beyond nature.
Following scientific theories there is no purpose to the world. So why can I not kill myself? Why is it wrong to be immoral? And who is even to say what is wrong and right anyway? Man kind needs G-d to stay away from corruption as well as give life purpose. (I am not saying that atheists have no purpose in their personal lives.)
Knowledge of G-d has been passed down through the generations for several thousand years, if not forever. During the period of the Enlightenment, a few hundred years ago, philosophers chose to pull the blind on Divine Being and thought up their own theories(, which came about before the major proofs did).

I do not doubt evolution but I see faults in the Theory of Evolution. The best way to learn things as this is to only accept facts during your study period and think rationally.

Evolution doesn't explain how the Universe was created, because that's not what evolution is about. You still haven't proved your BOP. You are debating a entirely differenet thing. I have nothing to say intil you prove that God created the life in our world then just saying it. Prove it.


Debate Round No. 3
Unity

Pro

Addressed to my opponent,
1. I already said what this debate includes
2. you have no points
3. you are just denying what I bring as proof more obvious than evolution
4. Please excuse my ignorance but what is BOP :)
5. I will leave it there for the love of peace :)
FrackJack

Con

Addressed to my opponent,
1. I already said what this debate includes
But you didn't even back them up. And your starying from those points.

you have no points

I dont need them. The BOP is on you.

3. you are just denying what I bring as proof more obvious than evolution

Please. You dont even know what evolution is.



Please excuse my ignorance but what is BOP :)

Burden of Proof. It's your job to prove it.


So you forfeit?
Debate Round No. 4
Unity

Pro

Fine, I forfeit. There was complete lack of justice here! I have too many things to do to waste time on proving a point that I do not need proven. I know the truth and can only hope that others will not spread lies. Please if someone is to vote still do it for who had the better arguments and ignore the lack of morality.
I thank my opponent for holding his piece until now.
I wish all the best to the people of the world! I can no longer be bothered- if you do not see clearly then that is not my problem. Believe what you see fit- understand what you know- learn what you want- enjoy life!
May the right prevail!
Thank you
FrackJack

Con

Unity has FF'd.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Unity 4 years ago
Unity
Contender,
Your use of the term BOP is completely senseless to me
Posted by Unity 4 years ago
Unity
FrackJack,
Perhaps this is not what you expected. I do apologize. Still, I feel as you are avoiding arguing what is set in front of you!
Posted by Unity 4 years ago
Unity
Okay M. jackintosh, I accept what you have said.
About your precision with wording- I too pick up on specific words when I analyse properly. However I noticed that I am hypocritical in a way as I myself do not use the correct English terminology very often- (but I am working on it). So gaining includes in a way that lacks confusion. I should add that it not only depend on what type of a person you are, but also what type of a person or object you are learning from.
I apologize that my sources were incorrect or not giving the full truth (it is not hard to believe that a science teacher like mine would give over information impressing the wrong idea that "it is just this way and very very few scientists disagree"). So you have said there is evidence of eggs, of aged categorized fossils of species. Is there proof of each generation showing the gradual change? I believe not- that is why it is a theory.
'Perfect' was the wrong word to use- perhaps precise would be better.
And I do appreciate your offers, truly, nonetheless I feel satisfied with the amount of knowledge I am currently processing.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
I never said you cannot still gain. It is not that black and white, I merely said that you will be confused and will certainly not in the context of a few chapters learn more than fragments of information. if things were that simple to explain so many people wouldn't be constantly studying it.

With topics, like evolution and celestial development, that require a basic understanding you should have that baseline of understanding first. For example, in the debate you state a very clear lack of knowledge and understanding of the evidence of evolution.

"There is no fact that these fossils reproduced. There is no certainty that every group of creatures had any offspring."

We have fossilized eggs, we have younger and older fossils of species that show that some were physically older. We know the age of animals is via annuli, and lines of arrested growth. So we have fossil eggs, fossils of the young of the species and even still the fossils of the old. So they had young, this is fact.

Within the scope of Neo-Darwinian synthesis and phylogenetics we can take DNA sequences and compare them, the more similar they are the more recent the common ancestor. We share much of our own DNA with a variety of animals, even jellyfish, especially in regards to our eyes. Studies of the eyes of the root-arm medusa strongly suggests that animal eyes share a common origin. This relationship is apparent in other animals as we all seem to have a master eye coordinating gene call Pax-6.

"How is it possible that a random explosion caused something so detailed and perfect?" Evolution is not random, and no being is perfect... especially not humans in any way and certainly not anatomically.

Education through discussion is fantastic! But it should supplement other studies, not be the sole provider. That is why I suggested some reading. Classes, discussions, debates, and further independent studies should all be part of the knowledge gaining process.
Posted by Unity 4 years ago
Unity
I beg to differ. If you enter a topic of discussion with the right mindset, even without being all-knowing on the subject, you can still gain.
If you are determined to learn and not determined to win, if you are not actually sincerely biased before you start discussing, if you are honest and modest and your purpose is aimed right... I think such a thing can be a very productive way of gaining. But I understand what you are saying- and I agree to the extent that it is not best for everyone (though I am not in a position to say which is majority or whatever).
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
Of course you shouldn't ignore the subject, its extremely important that you not! However by not learning about the subject before hand you are just asking to be confused and frustrated . You have to learn about things before you can say they are correct or not.
Posted by Unity 4 years ago
Unity
I appreciate the offers, jackintosh, but decline with all due respect.
I am sorry that it sounded that way, but I did not mean to say evolution is the same thing as astronomical creations. I meant to use evolution merely as a term to categorize the evolution and existence of things without a G-d.
I agree this is a very deep subject but I do not feel that such being the case I should ignore until I am wise and more knowledgeable. Thank you for showing a considerate nature, though.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
I would love to take up the debate but unfortunately I think the stated resolution sends a clear message of misunderstanding of what evolution is vs. creation of planets.Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of earth, the solar system or anything astronomical in nature.If you would like, I can discuss what each of these two ideas are in message and maybe explain a few of the nuances of each in messaging if you like? I can also offer some reading for you, something like Carl Sagan Cosmos for a good book on astronomy. And for biology and evolution, i would go with something i find pretty witty at times and easy to understand, Richard Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale. I wouldn't suggest tackling origin of species until a little later as that was very dense in my opinion.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
UnityFrackJackTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Throwing this out there... Evolution cannot create a planet. Pro used a flawed question and FrackJack didn't call him out for it.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
UnityFrackJackTied
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: "I have too many things to do to waste time on proving a point that I do not need proven." Are you kidding? Newton devoted his life to proving gravity. Freaking gravity!!! We knew for sure it existed but he spent his whole life, created a new math, just to prove it.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
UnityFrackJackTied
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: Unity forfeited.