The Instigator
IamZero
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
CosmicAlfonzo
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Their is evidence for Creation.

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 7 votes the winner is...
CosmicAlfonzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,558 times Debate No: 15122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (7)

 

IamZero

Pro

Their is much evidence, however; I am so confident, I will allow my opponent to speak first. Bring it on.
CosmicAlfonzo

Con

Because of the vague nature of this debate, and my opponent's inability to define what he means by "creation", I will do so myself.

Creation will be defined as...

"The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence."

Divine will be defined as..

"Of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being."

World will be defined as...

"Everything that exists; the universe; the macrocosm."

Evidence will be defined as...

"Proof. Something that makes plain or clear"

My opponent's goal is to present evidence that the world was created by a divine being.

(All definitions from Dictionary.com)
Debate Round No. 1
IamZero

Pro

Because of my opponent's obvious theory that not most people know what creation means, he took up most of his arguement describing what creation is.
Here is my arguement: DNA is what makes us. DNA is pure information. It is physically impossible for randomly generated matter to contain information.
Please tell me one instance when random made matter contains information.
CosmicAlfonzo

Con

You are saying that there is evidence for creation. The burden is on you to present the evidence. If you can not present evidence, your argument is little more than a baseless assertion. If you do present what you consider to be evidence, it would be my job to point out how the evidence you present does not necessarily imply a supreme being.

Random is defined as "Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern".

One could argue that nothing is truly random, and random is an illusion created by our own inability to account for all variables.

Aim is defined as "To intend or direct for a particular effect or purpose".

If there is an aim, we are not aware of it.

Reason is defined as "A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc".

Matter seems to be consistent in that it operates under cause and effect. You could call that reason.

Pattern is defined as "A combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement".

Patterns are apparent in just about everything once enough information is gathered. Things that once appeared to be random are shown to work under the same cause and effect laws as everything else.

If something appears to be random, it is due to ignorance of these variables unaccounted for. I doubt anything is truly random.

It would be a bit of a stretch to say that DNA is proof of creation.

(All definitions once again pulled from Dictionary.com)
Debate Round No. 2
IamZero

Pro

Well, you failed to give me an answer. I didn't say DNA is proof of creation, I merely noted DNA cannot be formed randomly. You could not come up with an example when it is. Also, if a person evoluted missing one vital organ, he would die. So it would have to happen all over again with all the right vital organs. Even then, if their wasn't a human of the opposite sex, with all their bodily functions, they would die childless. Evolutionists disagree with other evolutionists. Most of your dating methods are screwy, or open to extreme interpretation. I rest my case.
CosmicAlfonzo

Con

As I stated in my last argument, I agree that DNA can not be formed randomly. I went a step further by stating that I doubt anything is truly random. Random is merely an illusion caused by our own limited ability to perceive all the variables that go into any event.

Even if we take it as fact that nothing is truly random, this is not evidence for creation.

My opponent clearly has a poor understanding of natural selection. He made the claim that there was much evidence, but by his own admission failed to present any evidence whatsoever. He has absolutely no case.

I trust that those who take part in the voting process will show proper discernment when making their judgments.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charles0103 5 years ago
Charles0103
I knew Alfonzo would win this the moment I saw "their."
Posted by gizmo1650 5 years ago
gizmo1650
When does the carpet become wet? 1 molecule of water, 1,000,000 molecules. Just because there is no point where we can say a carpet goes from dry to wet, that does not mean that a carpet will never become wet. Simmilarly, just because we can not point to the generation where a horse gives birth to a non-horse, does not mean that horses will not become non-horses. If you actually study evolution, you will see that their are no clean divisions, and the 'tree of life' goes in scale from ape to human, and from polar bear to brown bear.
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
This is rather bad - the 'pro' side just isn't giving any arguments. Just baseless assertions. Generally a debate should force the other side to do new research, to engage them. This doesn't seem to be the case. All that the con side has to do is basically point out that the pro side is making a lot of assertions without backing them up.
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
"A horse is a horse of course, of course. Of course a horse is a horse of course!"

Yes that is quite funny. Signatureaa!
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 5 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
lol at Tve
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
Evolution isn't a fact, it's at least an estimation.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
A horse is a horse of course, of course. Of course a horse is a horse of course!

Evolution is a fact, please stop being ridiculous.
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 5 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
Apply what I'm saying to Godsand's argument, Ann.

I am not saying a horse is a crab. I am not saying a horse is an eagle. I'm saying a horse is what it is, and it isn't a horse.

When it comes to certain contexts, yes, it is easier to just say that a horse is a horse. But truly, a horse isn't a horse, and if we are talking in the context of evolution, it becomes counterproductive to understanding if you still think that a horse is a horse.

Try to make sense of what I'm saying. When you understand what I'm saying, it is obvious. This is really hard to explain. XP
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
But I do understand what you are saying, a book isn't it's self a book, it is a collection of pages that make up a book. Likewise a horse is a system of biological networks which conduct together to make the features of what we call a horse.
Posted by annhasle 5 years ago
annhasle
A horse is a horse. You have to accept that premise is true if you want effective communication. The only way language is indeed useful in our lives is if there's consensus on terms. Even though language would not exist without humans creating it -- the benefits and necessity of it outweigh its potential limitations and semantical nonsense.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro acted very confident that he had evidence for creation but he merely proved how ignorant he was of evolution. If he doesn't understand how a toaster toasts bread I wonder if he attributes it to the great spirit.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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: The DNA argument was not refuted which was trivial to do as it was not even sourced, but Con dropped it so it has to stand.
Vote Placed by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll take a page from Con's book and put forth a definition. Argument - A connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition, not just saying "no it isn't." (Monty Python). Pro was lacking the "connected" part and con was lacking the "statement" part. The burden of proof justification was good, but I can't give Con arguments because he totally did not refute the DNA argument, no matter how faulty of an argument it was. I did like Pro's use of the "word" "evoluted"...
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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 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: Pro claimed there was "much evidence", yet offered none, and did not explain why or how DNA was evidence of creation.
Vote Placed by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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: Pro had the burden of proof and he should have presented evidence, instead he presented one giant argument from ignorance: "I can't think of a way by which DNA could have formed, life evolved and radiometric dating performed, therefore God did it!" Of course we do have a pretty good understanding of how DNA formed, even better understanding of evolution and a rock solid understanding of radiometric dating, but even if we didn't there is no reason to accept an argument from ignorance.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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: Pro said "Their is evidence for Creation" and provided none.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
IamZeroCosmicAlfonzoTied
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: Such fail Pro.