The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 44666
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

First round is for acceptance. Good luck!

Just in case you do not know what it means. Theistic evolution is believing things evolved, but their ancestors were made by god.
DudeStop

Con

Pro requested my participation.

I will prove that this is highly improbable, that a sentient creator would choose evolution as a way to create humanity.

I will also source a lot of Hitchens quotes.

Pro and I agreed that this will be the god of Christianity.

Thank You, and please do not mistake me giving you a hint of what I'm arguing as an argument.

I await responses as you read.
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

Case 1:

First, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! I think I have proven evolution true. However, I will now prove it is not possible without the existence of god.

Case 2:

Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say that god created the chicken, or god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken.

My next case is that everything would have to evolve at the same time for an our Eco-system to be the way it is now. Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve.

I think these are sound arguments that proves that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today. Thank you for reading my argument. I hand the debate over to a highly respected debater DudeStop.

1. http://www.amnh.org...

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
DudeStop

Con

Thank you Pro for your compelling arguments.

"First, I would like to prove how evolution is real"

There is really no solid evidence, but we'll go into that later.

"In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! I think I have proven evolution true. However, I will now prove it is not possible without the existence of god"

First, a definition for evolution is required: "The gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. [1]"

Then we must ask ourselves: Has Pro proved that this process is indeed true?

He only talks about how we share related DNA.



Why not accept that god made things with similar DNA over the unproven theory of evolution?


"Let's start out with the classic question. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? While regular atheist evolutionist have a lot of trouble answering the question, people who believe in theistic evolution do not. The atheist think life was not created, but knows that you need a male and female sex cell to produce offspring in animals who sexually reproduce. While, people who believe in theistic evolution have not problem answering this. God created the chicken or his ancestor. So they then say that god created the chicken, or god created the ancestor of the chicken, and it evolved into a chicken"

Actually, the theory of simultaneous causation and a multiverse would explain this perfectly.

Simultaneous causation:
This cause of the universe occurs as such:
Three states of the universe come into being at the same time, State A causes B, which causes state C, which causes state A; all at the same time. The cause and effect exist simultaneously, all having causal explanations.

Why accept God over simultaneous causation?
L.A. Mitchell came up with this, I deserve no credit for it whatsoever.

The multiverse:
is the idea that we had so many different universes, with so many different combinations, that eventually we made the perfect conditions for us to live in.
Why accept god over the multiverse?



"Think of the flower bee relationship. Flowers are less complex than bees, and would take a shorter time to evolve. This would mean that all the self pollinating flowers would die off because the bees did not evolve in time. Atheist also have problems giving a explanation for this. While people who believe in theistic evolution can easily explain it. God created the bees and flowers ancestor, so they were able to survive and evolve."

Pro shoots himself in the foot a bit here. If god made them how they are, then what part did evolution take in this process?

"Thank you for reading my argument"

No problem mate, anytime.

"I hand the debate over to a highly respected debater DudeStop"

Oh. I then hand it back then to (Insert impressive title here) CoolDudebro.

Thank you for your arguments.

I suggest that Pro has yet to meet his burden of proof.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

Rebuttal 1:

Dispite his best effort, he could not refute this to his best ability. Skulls show the evolution process. (1) as you can see from the link, you can easily see evolution of the human skull. Again, huge similarities. I have provided DNA proof of evolution. He also failed to give a rebuttal to my statement that we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs. He also do not know what god planned. We deal with mutations every day. Mutations is how evolution started. For example, an increased number of people are being born with two sets of DNA. This may be the next step in human evolution! (2) see how you something as simple as this can alter humans this much. This shows how easy evolution can start. Now, just like regular evolution, it may take a lot of years for all humans to be like this. This proves evolution again.

Rebuttal 2:

Then who made the universe? Who made the planets? Who made the animals? Who made the stars? You just can't answer that. Also, I don't even see how this theory plays into this. There are other universes, but who made them? How did the cells and elements reach us? Again, you can not tell which came first. The chicken or the egg? You just dodged the question. You also failed to refute my statements adequately.

Rebuttal 3:

Again, you fail to address the issue of the less complex organisms evolving first. I said he either created them or their ancestor. Lets go with the ladder. He made their ancestor. I also apologize for an error I made while writing my arguments. I meant non self pollinating plants. Not self pollinating plants.

I think I proved my point. I look forward to your rebuttals.

1. http://www.infovisual.info...

2. http://santacruz.hubpages.com...
DudeStop

Con

Thank You Pro.

As you can clearly see, Pro commits the logical fallacy known as "Ad Hominem" multiple times.

Now to the argument(s):

"Dispite his best effort, he could not refute this to his best ability"

I merely asked a question. I would like you to answer the question. I gave actually. I don't know why you assume me saying that evolution is not the only conclusion is my inky rebuttal.

"Skulls show the evolution process. (1) as you can see from the link, you can easily see evolution of the human skull. Again, huge similarities. I have provided DNA proof of evolution"

From the last round:

"Why not assume god out similar DNA in the species he created?"

"He also failed to give a rebuttal to my statement that we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs"

Yet again, I need to press for an answer. There is NO good reason to assume evolution over a god creating things with common DNA. Your point was included in my question.

" He also do not know what god planned"

I hold this belief that god does not exist, but obviously you have no idea as well even if we did assume he was real.

"We deal with mutations every day. Mutations is how evolution started. For example, an increased number of people are being born with two sets of DNA. This may be the next step in human evolution! (2) see how you something as simple as this can alter humans this much. This shows how easy evolution can start. Now, just like regular evolution, it may take a lot of years for all humans to be like this"

I fail to see how this proves evolution, nor how it would help humans survive.

Evolution is:
"The gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form"

Has pro shown how this somehow makes humans better, why it had to be evolution, and how it must have been the Christian god specifically? Not even one statement showed that.

" This proves evolution again"

You've proved nothing...
Rebuttal 2:

"Then who made the universe?"

"Who made the planets? Who made the animals? Who made the stars? You just can't answer that. Also, I don't even see how this theory plays into this. There are other universes, but who made them? How did the cells and elements reach us? Again, you can not tell which came first. The chicken or the egg? You just dodged the question. You also failed to refute my statements adequately"

I think I answered this when I showed how simultaneous causation can create universes. This is the exact theory:

Three states of the universe come into being at the same time, State A causes B, which causes state C, which causes state A; all at the same time. The cause and effect exist simultaneously, all having causal explanations.

I must ask you, why assume evolution and god over simultaneous causation and the multiverse...?

Pro's question was asserting that we cannot explain where the universe came from. He then rattles off a list of random things that he has no idea who or what created them,then concludes that it must have been a who and that being is god.

This is simply an argument from ignorance [1]

"Again, you fail to address the issue of the less complex organisms evolving first. I said he either created them or their ancestor. Lets go with the ladder. He made their ancestor. I also apologize for an error I made while writing my arguments. I meant non self pollinating plants. Not self pollinating plants."

No. I do not have to accept your assertion that a god created the ancestor first, as I'm clearly arguing against evolution.

1. If evolution is not true, Pro's contention fails.

2. Evolution has not been proven by Pro...

3. Therefore, his third contention fails.

Obviously, Pro still has yet to prove over half of his arguments.

Thank You Pro.

[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Pro

Skulls do show evolution!








"Yet again, I need to press for an answer. There is NO good reason to assume evolution over a god creating things with common DNA. Your point was included in my question."


Proved that there is a big reason last round


"I hold this belief that god does not exist, but obviously you have no idea as well even if we did assume he was real."


Make this clearer. I have no idea what you are implying here.


"I fail to see how this proves evolution, nor how it would help humans survive.

Evolution is:
"The gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form"


See. Even if evolution is not for the better, it can become more complex. This would make humans more complex. Evolution starts from simple mutations. As an increased number of people are born with this, it may eventually be the new form of human in many years.


"Has pro shown how this somehow makes humans better, why it had to be evolution, and how it must have been the Christian god specifically? Not even one statement showed that."


Fine Lets just say any god. I did not post in the original guidelines that rule.


"You've proved nothing..."

That is debatable to say the least.



"I think I answered this when I showed how simultaneous causation can create universes. This is the exact theory:

Three states of the universe come into being at the same time, State A causes B, which causes state C, which causes state A; all at the same time. The cause and effect exist simultaneously, all having causal explanations.

I must ask you, why assume evolution and god over simultaneous causation and the multiverse...?

Pro's question was asserting that we cannot explain where the universe came from. He then rattles off a list of random things that he has no idea who or what created them,then concludes that it must have been a who and that being is god.

This is simply an argument from ignorance [1]"


I asked you the question and you continue to dodge them. You can't answer them, so you call them an "argument of ignorance." The reason why I accept god over the multi universe theory is that someone would have had to make the universes and their components. The theory makes no sense. If they are exact copies, then they would have the same result.



"No. I do not have to accept your assertion that a god created the ancestor first, as I'm clearly arguing against evolution."


If you can't disprove it just say it.


"No. I do not have to accept your assertion that a god created the ancestor first, as I'm clearly arguing against evolution.

1. If evolution is not true, Pro's contention fails.

2. Evolution has not been proven by Pro...

3. Therefore, his third contention fails."


Highly debatable.


Cooldudebro's closing arguments:


May I remind you that DudeStop's job is to prove theistic evolution impossible. I suggest he hasn't come close to proving that yet.


What I proved:


1. Evolution is true
2. You need god to do it
3. My opponent can not even attempt to disprove many of my points.
4. My opponent dodged many questions.
5. He dropped my arguments on skulls.

I think I have met my BOP in stating that theistic evolution is a way to explain animals and humans today
DudeStop

Con

"I asked you the question and you continue to dodge them. You can't answer them, so you call them an "argument of ignorance." The reason why I accept god ove r the multi universe theory is that someone would have had to make the universes and their components. The theory makes no sense. If they are exact copies, then they would have the same result"

I've answered the questions he posted. He does not realize that different variations of simultaneous causation can indeed occur.. He asked my where the universe came from, I answered! and he refused to believe int was an "adequate" assertion.

"Make this clearer. I have no idea what you are implying here"

You told me I don't know what god's plan is...

Pro does a phenomenal job presenting evidence of evolution, but he does not explain any of his evidence. He literally gives 0 reasons as to why this supports evolution, but says the evidence he gave was satisfactory.

If one does not explain the evidence, it is meaningless.

The skulls also do not prove evolution. There is no reason to assume they do.

Pro then tries to change the terms of the debate in his final round by saying it's just god, not the Christian god.

I reject this notion' I'm sorry.

Pro's entire case hasn't been proven. He uses unproven assertions to support his case, which wasn't even made..
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
? Question mark
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Lol Highly Respected?

Name 2.
No votes have been placed for this debate.