The Instigator
beatmaster2012
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

There is no god and evolution is a fact.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,713 times Debate No: 21745
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

beatmaster2012

Pro

The god discussion is back. I'd like to hear what con has to say first.
THEBOMB

Con

I accept and would like to point out my opponent has the BOP to prove evolution is always a fact and also to prove god does not exist. If they fail one of these to things the resolution is defeated.
Debate Round No. 1
beatmaster2012

Pro



Well first off all I think it should be up to the christians to prove god does exist since they made the claim. Nevertheless I will try to disprove it.

First of all the evidence of evolution:

Fossils
This is the most common evidence supporting evolution. A fossil is a remain of a creature found in the ground. Several fossils have been found of creatures that is not found walking on earth. Concluding it is a fossil of an extinct specie. Confirming the evolution theory.

Similarities
There are anatomical and chemical similarities found between related species. If you take a look at the early stages of a creature (any animal or human), you see that the foetus is almost exactly the same, concluding they once were the same. Also have we established that some creatures have organs which have no use in todays society. For example take the coccyx of a human. Or the fact that whales have little armbones inside their bodies.

Geographic resemblance
The theory is that whenever a group of species gets split up, they start to adapt to their environment. Proof of this is for example the dark skin of African people, their skin has to darken so they don't get burned by the sun. Or polar bears that have a thick fur they use against the cold.

Disproving God
I think that the lack of evidence supporting god and the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution points out that evolution is more plausible than creationism. We have not yet discovered how the universe was made (although there are theories) but that doesn't automatically mean a higher power made it. God is entirely made up so people could explain things they didn't understand. And nowadays it's used to control great masses of people, but that's a touchy subject so I won't go deeper into that.

I'm waiting for your response.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

While I do support the idea of evolution I recognize that it is not a scientific fact but, rather a scientific theory. I do believe God exists.

BOP

My opponent is making the claims evolution is a scientific fact and god does not exist. They must prove these conclusions as they are the ones making the claim.

Evolution is a theory

Throughout this entire debate we must keep in mind that evolution is nothing more than a scientific theory. There is a major difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. A scientific fact is something which can be observed and measured. A scientific theory, on the other hand, are explanations which correlate and interpret facts. (1) Darwinian Evolution is not a fact as Darwin inferred his theory from three facts about populations (2). It is a theory according to the definition provided above. Since we cannot measure evolution it cannot be a scientific fact.

Fossils

"Several fossils have been found of creatures that is not found walking on earth. Concluding it is a fossil of an extinct specie. Confirming the evolution theory."

Man has found fossils of dinosaurs underground. Dinosaurs do not walk the earth. Therefore, dinosaurs are extinct. How exactly do dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution?My opponent must be more specific with this point for it to be considered evidence.

Similarities

"There are anatomical and chemical similarities found between related species"

In other words, related species are related. How does this support evolution?

"If you take a look at the early stages of a creature (any animal or human), you see that the foetus is almost exactly the same, concluding they once were the same."

Please provide a source for this unverifiable statement. Also, is my opponent claiming the fetus of a cow is similar to the fetus of a human? Or the fetus/zygote of a human is similar to the human? Or the fetus of one human is similar to the fetus of another human?

"Also have we established that some creatures have organs which have no use in todays society. For example take the coccyx of a human. Or the fact that whales have little armbones inside their bodies."


What is the point of this statement?


Geographic Resemblance

"The theory is that whenever a group of species gets split up, they start to adapt to their environment."

I believe my opponent flat out conceded evolution was not a fact but, rather, a theory. A better title for this would be adaptation anyway.


Now onto God

"the lack of evidence supporting god and the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution points out that evolution is more plausible than creationism"

Evolution being more plausible than creationism does not disprove God. Why could God not have guided the evolutionary process?"



We have not yet discovered how the universe was made (although there are theories)"


I agree, there are theories such as the Big Bang Theory. Evolution is another scientific theory.


"that doesn't automatically mean a higher power made it"

You have yet to prove God does not exist. But, something must have made the universe. Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (3) completely invalid? Do you deny the existence of a first cause or first mover? What exactly is your reasoning behind this statement?


"God is entirely made up so people could explain things they didn't understand"

I believe this is what you are trying to prove.


"And nowadays it's used to control great masses of people"

I would like to see some documentation of this assertion. And how exactly does this prove God does not exist?

My opponent has not proven a scientific theory to be a scientific fact nor have they proven God does not exist.


Source:

1. http://www.fsteiger.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
beatmaster2012

Pro

"How exactly do dinosaur fossils support the theory of evolution?"
The evolution theory is the most logical explanation for these fossils. Creationism has no plausible way of explaining this (correct me if I'm wrong).

"Related species are related. How does this support evolution?"
This supports evolution because this theory is based on relativity of creatures. About that every creature started as one and the same cell. As I explained, these species started to change because they got split up. Creationism though, says God created all the animals as different creatures and not related to each other. Evolution seems to disprove this.

"Please provide source for this unverifiable statement."
This picture should do the trick:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here's the explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org.... I know Wikipedia is not a legit source but it's enough to satisfy.

"What's the point of this statement?"
My point is that is is higly probably that whales used to have arms (at least whale creatures) and humans used to have tails. This goes deeper into the changing to environment theory.

"Why could God not have guided the evolutionary process?"
Because the evolution on its own does not need a guidance. Mother nature
does all. I'm happy to explain if you don't understand but my point is that a guidance was not necessary.

"Do you deny the existence of a first cause or first mover?"
I'm not entirely sure myself of this because it's a complicated subject. But if you go with that logic I think God would need a creator too.

Disproving God is a hard thing since it's a really abstract thing. As South Park explained nicely: there is also no way to disprove an invisible flying spaghetti monster in the air.

About evolution being a theory or a fact. There is no way to completely prove evolution, but the evidence supporting it is strong. And in the Netherlands, where I live, evolution is taught as a fact at schools.

I must say you are more rational than more believers I know. I'm waiting for your answer.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for their quick response. (I also would like to point out I have been playing devil's advocate on the evolutionary part of this debate,)


Evolution is a Theory

"About evolution being a theory or a fact. There is no way to completely prove evolution, but the evidence supporting it is strong."

A scientific fact is something which must be observable. A scientific theory is a correlation and interpretation of the facts. Two completely seperate things. Evolution is a theory. The variety of traits among a population is a fact. You cannot quantify evolution you can quantify traits.


Fossils


"The evolution theory is the most logical explanation for these fossils."


A fossil is nothing more "Any preserved evidence of life from a past geological age, such as the impressions and remains of organisms embedded in stratified rocks." (1) Fossils are petrified remains. When something dies there is a chance its remains will become preserved in rock. Thus, you get a fossil. You do not need evolution to explain the existence of the fossil. But, you can use certain fossil records to support evolution. You have not done so.


Similarities

"This supports evolution because this theory is based on relativity of creatures. About that every creature started as one and the same cell. As I explained, these species started to change because they got split up. Creationism though, says God created all the animals as different creatures and not related to each other. Evolution seems to disprove this."

No, Creationism basically is that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being" usually God (2). Why could God have not created both man and say chimpanzee to be similar? Two seperate yet similar animals. Simply stating two animals have similar characteristics does not mean they have a common ancestor (unless you prove this).


The picture and wikipedia article

Please provide some analysis of the picture so I actually know what I am looking at. I cannot argue against a picture without any idea of what the picture is. As for the wikipedia source, while wikipedia is a good source, I am arguing against you. Not the article, please provide some analysis of the wikipedia article.


"My point is that is is higly probably that whales used to have arms (at least whale creatures) and humans used to have tails. This goes deeper into the changing to environment theory."

"Changing to environment" is the same as natural selection just to give you the scientific term. You still have not explained how natural selection disproves a theory such as creationism.


God

"Because the evolution on its own does not need a guidance. Mother nature does all."


Your burden is to disprove the existence of God totally. Why can't the pantheistic view on the universe be accurate (god and nature are identical)? (3)


" if you go with that logic I think God would need a creator too."

That is the point of the first mover argument. That there is something out there which was the starting point for everything when it in itself was uncreated. It was first.


"Disproving God is a hard thing since it's a really abstract thing."

Nevertheless, it is still your BOP. Are you conceding half the resolution?




1. http://www.biology-online.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
beatmaster2012

Pro

"A scientific fact is something which must be observable. A scientific theory is a correlation and interpretation of the facts."
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong. Jus like gravity. Gravity is a fact, the way gravity works is a theory.

"You do not need evolution to explain the existence of a fossil."
I stand by my theory and I challenge you to find another reasonable explanation.

"Why could God have not created both man and chimpanzee to be similar?"
It certainly could be possible, although many similarities in DNA and bone structure have been found between humans and apes. Every bone in your body is similar to the one of the apes, only they have been modified so apes can climb better than us. The evidence is in the source.

"Please provide some analysis of the picture so I actually know what I'm looking at."
We see in the picture that the earliest stages of the embryo of any animal is similar to each other. Eventually they will change but we see that every animal has the same beginning. This supports the evolution theory by establishing the resemblance of every animal.

"You still have not explained how natural selection disproves a theory such as creationism."
Let's start at the beginning. Creationism states there was God. Evolution states there was chance. Evolution states the world population was caused by chance and accidents, while the bible clearly states it wasn't. God chose people to populate the earth. God made every single decision. Also as I have stated previously, God was supposed to be guiding the process, while evolution needs no guidance. The bible also states the human is special, created in the image of God, while evolution stats it is created from any other animal. The bible states too that the creation is a past event and not happening anymore, while evolution is still ongoing and will not stop at any time soon.

"God and mother nature are identical?"
We are presumably talking about the God made popular in the bible. From that point on, nature is not a single "person" who decides what's right and what's wrong.

"There is something out there which was the starting point for everything when it in itself was uncreated."
This is a really hard subject to talk about but I can try to explain things. For anything to exist or begin or happen, you need time. Without time nothing can happen. God is said to have created time, which is by that logic impossible, since you would need time to create time. Going by that logic time has always existed. But this logic can be completely false since there are claims that God disregards any rules of the universe.

"Are you conceding half the resolution?"
I will try to disprove God as much as I can, but I told you it's nearly impossible to disprove something which has no single trace of its existence. Have you ever heard of Epicurus? If not I'll explain:
God is omnipotent and omniscient.

There is evil in the world. These two are facts.
If God is able to prevent evil but not willing, then he is a cruel God, which contradicts the bible.
If God is not able but willing to prevent evil, then he's not omnipotent, contradicting the bible as well.
If God is both able and willing to prevent evil, then evil shouldn't exist.
If God is neither able or willing to prevent evil, he's not a God.

There are possible answers to this, but I want to hear your solution.

Good luck.


Source:

http://elearning.la.psu.edu...
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for their speedy response and will continue.

Evolution is a theory

"The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong. Jus like gravity. Gravity is a fact, the way gravity works is a theory."

According to this analogy, evolution is fact but, what works evolution is theory. You make evolution into both a theory and a fact, not just fact. Not every part of evolution can be quantified. Simply stating the occurence of evolution is a fact does not make the mechanics behind evolution a fact. Even evolution itself began as 5 seperate theories. I'll grant you things do evolve from one point in time to another, so evolution occurs. But, science cannot explain the cause of evolution, there are no facts expaining what drives evolution, therefore, evolution occurs, but, it still is overwhelmingly a theory.

Fossils


"I stand by my theory and I challenge you to find another reasonable explanation."

I believe I did give an explaination in round 3. A fossil exists because something died and became petrified in stone. The fossils existence is due to the death of another being.


Similarities



"It certainly could be possible, although many similarities in DNA and bone structure have been found between humans and apes."

So it could be possible? Are you are admitting evolution may not be true? The rest of your explaination only says they are similar. It does nothing to disprove that God created chimpanzees and men to be similar.



"We see in the picture that the earliest stages of the embryo of any animal is similar to each other. Eventually they will change but we see that every animal has the same beginning. This supports the evolution theory by establishing the resemblance of every animal."


I believe there are only two animals in that picture. How did you get from the beginning point of 2 animals to the end claim "the embryo of any animal is similar"? Furthermore, even if we accept all embryos are similar how do we get from that step to there must be a common ancestor?


Natural Selection v Creationism

They are in constant disagreement with each other. What about Theistic Evolution? If for the present moment we accept there was a god why couldn't a god be there to indirectly guide the process. I mean the formation of DNA is so inherently complex that intelligence must have been involved somewhere down the line. And if we accept the pantheistic notion of god then god is guiding all.

God

"We are presumably talking about the God made popular in the bible"

You merely stated you were going to disprove God. You did not specify which god you were going to disprove meaning you opened this point up for interpretation. Luckily for you, I only interpreted it to mean the pantheistic philosophy on god (I could have found more interesting interpretations).


First mover

My opponent is basically stating time has always existed. But, according to Stephen Hawking this is false. Time has a beginning and that beginning is the beginning of the universe. (2) Time has not always existed which means there must have been a first mover. Time well began at some point. There must have been something to begin it.


The disproof

This disproof is based upon the god of the bible. Since you did not define God it was open to interpretation. This disproof of god holds no sway for deism (3), panentheism (4), pantheism (5), or Zoroastrianism (6). Deism holds god is impersonal therefore, is not benevolent and would have no reason to get rid of evil. Panentheism teaches the universe is part of god. Pantheism has been explaine above. Zoroastrianism basically holds there are two main gods one is good and one is evil and that the good will eventually triumph over the evil. I realize it is MUCH more complicated than what I just said but, you most likely do not want a full explaination of Zoroastrianism.

My two answers to the disproof in relation to the Christian god:

1) In order for something to be described as "good" there must be that which is "not good" or in other words evil. You cannot have overwhelming good without evil. God allows evil so He can be described as good.

2) God allows evil for an good purpose. Evil is there for the purpose of good.



1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
2. http://www.hawking.org.uk...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. Zoroastrianism
Debate Round No. 4
beatmaster2012

Pro

I
It seems this is our last chance.

"There are no facts explaining what drives evolution."
Natural selection drives evolution. If you see the big picture, it all logically makes sense. When a stronger animal is born, it will survive. The stronger animal make babies, they all survive too. This is not only strenght, but also agility, intelligence and more.That's why it seems like the earth was almost created for us humans. It's not that the earth has adapted for us, but the other way around. So this drives evolution.

"The fossils eistence is due to the death of another being."
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant an explanation of the existence of dinosaur fossils. Since according to the bible, they didn't exist. It's all makes perfect sense. You have the problem (the dinosaur fossils), you think of a solution for that problem which makes sense (evolution theory), then you throw in some evidence and you have the solution for the dinosaur fossils. Of course this is not how the evolution theory was created, but it works too.

"It does nothing to disprove that God created chimpanzees and men to be similar."
Again, according to the bible, God made men in his image: perfect, intelligent and creative. It would have made no sense to make them almost the same as apes, since he clearly made apes to be less superiour to humans.

"Embryo analysis"
I don't know what you see, but I clearly see 8 different animals in the picture. A fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chicken, a pig, a cow, a dog and a human. These animals are all very different from each other, but they have the same beginning. Of course there's not way to determine wheter every single animal has the same embryo, but this is enough to example to convince scientists it is. This supports evolution because it shows we have the same ancestor. If God created all animals different from each other, they would also look different in the beginning.

"Natural Selection vs. Creationism"
As I said, evolution doesn't need a guide. Everything evolution does, can happen without need of a God. Even the development of the first living cells has been explained. I have an article about it:
http://www.windows2universe.org...
It seems that the first living things fed themselves of natural acids and later on they evolved into having the sun as their basic energy source. No God needed.

First mover
I agree that Hawking knows more about this subject than I do. So I believe him if he says time has always existed. Nevertheless, he did quote he believed God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...

I hope you're happy with my objections. And I look forward to the outcome of this debate.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I shall now continue.

Evolution is a theory

"Natural selection drives evolution."

I present one counter argument "Natural selection and the neutral theory are examples of theories of evolution." (1) Natural selection is nothing but a scientific theory itself.


Fossils


"I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant an explanation of the existence of dinosaur fossils."

They exist because the dinosaur died.


"Since according to the bible, they didn't exist."

I have not been arguing from the bible. I've actually tried to stay away from the bible.


"You have the problem (the dinosaur fossils), you think of a solution for that problem which makes sense (evolution theory), then you throw in some evidence and you have the solution for the dinosaur fossils. Of course this is not how the evolution theory was created, but it works too."

The fossil exists because the dinosaur died. It is as simple as that.



Simlarities


"Again, according to the bible, God made men in his image: perfect, intelligent and creative. It would have made no sense to make them almost the same as apes, since he clearly made apes to be less superiour to humans."


Exactly, God created apes to be similar to man but, still inferior to man.



Natural Selection v Creationism

"Everything evolution does, can happen without need of a God."

This does not mean God was not involved in natural selection. God would just be an extra guide. If God created the Universe then God also created evolution.



God


The disproof failed. And my opponent never disproved the pantheistic philosophy of God. Or any of the other numerous philosophies I noted.


First Mover


Stephen Hawking only disproves the notion of a personal God. Hawking believes "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." (2) Hawking does not discount an impersonal God. Furthermore, your quote simply says God does not have to be involved. Simply stating something is unnesseasry does not mean it is not there.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZoellEmerson1499 4 years ago
ZoellEmerson1499
Well I am a Christian for one and it is hard for me to believe at times if there is a god so I pray about it even if I really don't want to and want to give up and then god revives me wit things so unexplainable that you know it is him. As for the evolutionary thing I think it would take more faith to believe in that then creation. Lucy was a fail. And explain the presses of reptiles becoming birds anything in between would have been fatal because of the very different lung structure for one. ANd I just don't get it.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
@ChristianOnly

ummm....no...it isnt
Posted by ChristianOnly 5 years ago
ChristianOnly
Evolution is not fact. It is a explanation of how the Universe could have been created.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
errr....its not a scientific law by any stretch of the imagination....

Scientific laws only refer to scientific theories which can be stated in a very simple sentence, usually only an equation....
Posted by afrowe 5 years ago
afrowe
Evolution just a theory? It is now a scientific law.
Posted by hunnydew 5 years ago
hunnydew
itz k
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I was mainly addressing the fool on the hill (who did vote btw)...oh well I apologize if I offended you in any way
Posted by hunnydew 5 years ago
hunnydew
It is not all about the vote. I didn't even vote. and it was a comment not reason of the vote. If it were that you will be correct. comments are you opinion of the subject or what you thought about it and that's what I thought about. What I said was not about the vote. I never voted. If I typed that as my "reason for voting decision" you would be correct.

But you are also correct about the BOP.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
your own opinion is irrelevant you have to base your vote on what was SAID not what you think about the topic...I was referencing your vote...part of my opponents BOP was to disprove god. They never specified which philosophy on god they were talking about...since they failed to do so they never fulfilled their BOP.
Posted by hunnydew 5 years ago
hunnydew
I never said u were wrong is because I cant prove that so don't act so defensive. I just wonted to show my opinion about the subject.
GOSH!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
beatmaster2012THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Many examples of evolution have been observed, it is a scientific fact as any. It was obvious that pro was arguing against the notion of a good god. But the bomb intentionally picked one that didn’t cohere with pro, in order to get, a vote rather than take the challenge. But by choosing pantheistic god is a relabeling of god as nature, so it works against him. I would give con the argument vote if he hadn’t picked that version, which nobody would agree on as god.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
beatmaster2012THEBOMBTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't really like this debate. But as for actually deciding on a winner and a loser, I think con is sufficeintly proving that God could possibly exist. Since one of pro's resolution burdens is to prove that God CAN'T exist, I can vote con here and not even have to look into the messy evolution debate. Thank god for that.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
beatmaster2012THEBOMBTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: the resolution here was that evolution is real and that God is not, however evolution doesnt necessarily disprove the existence of god and the con provided a reasonable amount of evidence to show that there is a god, even though he got whipped in the evolution argument
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
beatmaster2012THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Asking questions and deliberating=mark off conduct...However, Pro lost. Pro did not link his evidence to the evolutionary theory (a description and references to the theory itself would have sufficed) and placed an enormous burden on himself--to disprove the existence of god. Unfortunately for Pro, he did not define which god would be disproved--though he explicitly stated, LATER, in regards to the biblical god, and so forth.