There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

Pro

first of all you can't "prove" a scientific theory.

second of all there is NO scientific evidence that actually supports the theory of evolution.

RE: Yes you can prove a scientific theory with hypothesis, testing, observing, that is the difference between science and creation, or this book. Science you can observe, test, prove, Religion only goes so far as of assumptions. I said this once, "you cannot go outside look up and see this god" but of course my opponent, will find an excuse on what I just said to disclaim it, but that is ok; we all know you can not see this god. When that happens you just assume he is real with no hard evidence, only a story that could also be made up, as you can see on allot of books that are sold today. With out that book, theist does not have nothing else used to prove of this creationism, other then hear say from a book, that is copied many, many, many, reworded allot.
As for NO scienctific evidence my opponent stated, there is, I will get to that in a minute.

I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life. I attended secular schools up to and beyond 2nd year college and attended biology and anthropology classes in college. After further study for a number of years after school I became convinced that the theory of evolution is false, not scientific and based on assumptions, deceptions and misinterpretations of data. I believe that God created the earth and the heavens and that they were created "good" or perfect to begin with and have since been steadily decaying (the opposite of evolution). I believe the earth is about 6000 years old but could be as old as 20,000 years.

Take a look at this table, I will give the link bottom of page; two different stories, from the same book, if this is true, if this book you say is true that would explain a point of Evolution in this book. Either the author who wrote this, found out his writings were wrong, or it was just part of this author story, what I can see this author was greatly confused, meaning he did not know. Therefor this god that is claim in this bible did not truely speak through this author. Remember this god in this book is perfect, so if this god is perfect he would not mess up any of these words.

Another part of Evolution:

I hope my opponent remembers what evolution means; make something complex to a perfect form, now what would be complex as we see today that is made totally different as time goes by?
A: A Sperm and a Egg, (reproduction aka truely evolution)



Image A: male sperm entering an female egg.

Once the sperm inserts the egg this will begin evolution. This is taking something complex, takes 9 months; after the development, evolving, the process of evolution. The end of nine months you will get something like this.

Image B:




If our earth took the bible literally, how everything was created; Animals, Humans would look like the egg and the sperm with no evolving form or anything, just organisms. Plants would just be a seed. You have to go through evolution aka change, to become something. Without actual evidence beyond words, there is no way we came from just a spoken word. That is true logic I speak, from what we see, and how we can anaylize, and actual see this god has nothing to do with this creation, it is created by organisms (sperm and egg).

Final 2nd Round Thought:

In my 3rd round if given the room to write, I will explain further into detail; this Evolution process, how the organisms, come from a complex thing, then to a fetus, then a baby. What changes, what evolution forms, what is lost, and gain, not only that, how this can connect the dots towards proving evolution. I just did the basic anaylises, I then will go through explanation.

Now knowing my opponent he will say this god did this, well let me debunk that, like I said we see visual proof of an egg and sperm, not this god.

He will then quote verses from this bible, which shows that creatures came first then men according to this book. First he needs to show visual proof of this god before disclaiming what i said, for the only thing he can fall on is this book of words, obviously written by man.

Then my opponent will try to manipulate or put text into play claiming I said them, or twist what I said up.

Then I might get insulted.

I will let my voters know, in my next round I will go more into detail, so please stay tune untill then, or keep your eye on this debate. I might just read what my opponent said, if it shows no evidence just assumptions of this creation, saying the same thing over and over I will just continue were I left off on this round in my next round.

I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and also thank the people for taking the time to read this debate, I apoligize for the spelling and grammer, we are all not perfect.

To be continued->->

Sources:

http://www.ecclesia.org...


http://www.redorbit.com...


http://www.hongkiat.com...

Note: If images does not show, just copy and paste link of image, or right click, then left click on open image in new tab.
if that does not work, try clicking one of the sources I posted, they also hold the same image. 

Con

Evolution:

"1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

-Pro

I have NO problem with this definition. Things certainly do change and grow. But where did this definition come from?

This is the definition I have a problem with.

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestorapproximately 3.8 billion years ago."

In order for my opponent to win this debate he will have to prove that:

1. the earth is roughly 3.8 billion years old.

2. There is good evidence that ALL life originated from…what? a rock?, hydrogen?…nothingness?

Let's deal with his arguments so far;

A) "Evolution means evolving through time, taking something complex to change over a period of time."

again I have No problem with this. The problem arises when you

a.1) assume "billions" of years.

a.2) "change" = one kind of animal slowly mutating into another kind of animal (which has never been observed).

B) The Genesis creation accounts.

The first account is when God created everything.

The second account is when God formed animals and plants in the garden for Adam to name. I believe he did this in front of Adam to demonstrate his power.

There is NO contradiction here.

3. There seems to be a disconnect in definitions here. I have no problem with things GROWING such as a fetus or a sunflower. However my opponent seems to be taking the word GROWING and then calling this EVOLUTION. If my opponent wants to just take the word "GROWING" and change it to "EVOLUTION" then I have no problem with his "EVOLUTION" The problem arises when he wants to say that animals mutate over "billions" of years into different animals. In which case he will have to prove that the earth is billions of years old and that there is good evidence to support this theory. He has done neither.

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

The Universe

The word "Universe" literally means, "One spoken word". The Bible clearly teaches throughout Genesis that God spoke, and it was so.

The 6,000 year-old date of the Universe

We believe that the clear teaching of the Bible, specifically Genesis Chapter 1 and Luke Chapter 3, teaches that:

* The whole Universe was created on Day One of the Six days of Creation (Genesis 1:1-5).

* The Hebrew words for "dusk" and "dawn" used in Genesis 1 are clearly referring to 24 hour periods of time, not millions of years (see below).

* Adam was created on Day Six of the Six Days of Creation (Genesis 1:27).

* Adam was "the son of God," not the son of a monkey (Luke 3:38).

* Jesus Christ was born 77 generations after Adam, which is a period of approximately 4,000 years (Luke 3:23-38).

* Jesus Christ was born approximately 2,000 years ago.

* Therefore Adam was born approximately 6,000 years ago.

* Adam was born at the beginning of the Creation, according to Jesus Christ in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4.

* The whole Universe was therefore also created approximately 6,000 years ago.

http://www.freechristianteaching.org...

Fossil formation at Noah's Flood

The Bible informs us in Genesis 7:11-12, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights."

- How could a dinosaur, mammoth, or anything else be preserved in rock, with their stomach contents preserved intact?

- The only way to make a fossil is to preserve it instantly in hundreds of tons of rock.

- For a whole dinosaur or mammoth to be preserved with stomach contents intact, it must have been preserved instantly, or the carcass would putrefy.

- We believe that this happened at Noah's flood.

- We believe that the only known event in the history of Planet Earth that could have caused fossils on such a grand scale was Noah's Flood.

- We believe that, at the time of Noah's flood 4,400 years ago, as the crust of the earth was broken up humans, fish and animals were instantly buried under tons of rock and debris.

Read more: http://www.freechristianteaching.org...

POLONIUM HALOS MAY BE OBSERVED IN SAMPLES OF SOLID ROCK FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD

Polonium Halos could have formed only if the rapidly decaying Polonium atoms, and the Halos of radioactive particles around the atoms, had been instantly encased in solid rock, with the emission of radioactive particles preserved as Polonium Halos.

These observable Polonium Halos provide undeniable evidence that the first created Polonium atoms were instantly preserved in solid granite, since the half life of Polonium is 3 minutes at most.

POLONIUM HALOS PROVE CREATION

Polonium Halos are found in granite samples all over the world, and may be viewed using a microscope.

The occurrence of these Polonium Halos in granite samples from all over the world indicates that the Earth was formed in an extremely short time, in complete harmony with the Biblical record of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1.

THE BIG BANG THEORY REFUTED

If the Earth was originally a hot molten mass which took millions of years to cool down, the radioactive particles emitted by the rapidly decaying Polonium, and accompanying Polonium Halos, would disappear in the molten lava, in the same way as an effervescent tablet in a glass of water.

The existence of Polonium Halos in granite samples from all over the world therefore completely disproves the Big Bang Theory.

Read more: http://www.freechristianteaching.org...

CONCLUSION

"Evolution must be believed, not observed. It is a matter of faith, not science. Every created "kind" was to reproduce after its own kind and not to generate some new kind. This does not preclude "horizontal" variations within limits, but it does prohibit "vertical" variation from one kind to some higher kind (e.g. monkeys to men).

Henry M Morris' "Science and the Bible"

Pro

I want to apoligize to my opponent for not stating the source of the definition I have recieved that from, I will post the source on the bottom of the page. I meant to post the source; just slipped my mind. 


This is the definition I have a problem with. "Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestorapproximately 3.8 billion years ago."


RE: My opponent needs to take a second look at the definition given that he accepted, not one word I have used mention a time frame. Let me repost the definition I have used, then I will give the source on the bottom of page. 

My definition I have used for Evolution:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

As you see there was no time frame of years or days used in this definition, this definition is true meaning of evolution, not what my opponent has mentioned. Wikipedia.com is not a reliable source, many people can log into the website, changing the words, or anything posted by another person, kind of like the bible. One writter story changes, words changed, by many others. 

a.1) assume "billions" of years.

a.2) "change" = one kind of animal slowly mutating into another kind of animal (which has never been observed).

RE) First; like I had said, nothing was mention of a time frame. 
 Second; change= mutation, meaning, my opponent clearly knows, he also went through change (mutation as spoken) when he was in his mothers womb, it has been observed; Observary methods: Sonagrams, scientific studies, etc... 

The first account is when God created everything.
The second account is when God formed animals and plants in the garden for Adam to name. I believe he did this in front of Adam to demonstrate his power.

RE) No evidence have my opponent given, beyond this book, that does contain many contradictions. It is clearly stated that in this book, Adam was after the water (without, life would not exist), Land, grass for the animals, then men, after men was created according to this book, of course you cannot just snap your fingers to extend population, and cannot create humans without, the woman. 

Here is the truth behind this all, with what evidence does my opponent have when he stated "The second account is when God formed animals and plants in the garden for Adam to name. I believe he did this in front of Adam to demonstrate his power". 
Like I have said there is no evidence, again without water life would cease to exist, now here is the contradiction of this statement; my opponent does realise form and made are two different words, Water, vegitation, animals, Male, then Female. It is even in written proof using the bible my opponent uses to read, he cannot deny that. 
How can this Adam exist, then not exist? he can not, simple as that. 



The Universe


The word "Universe" literally means, "One spoken word". The Bible clearly teaches throughout Genesis that God spoke, and it was so.


RE: Evidence please, not assumptions. 

The 6,000 year-old date of the Universe

RE: I thought my opponent said the earth was 6,000 years old not the Universe. They are two different words, and things. Also remember, a day is a day. 

Fossil formation at Noah's Flood

RE: The source my opponent used is a christian website. Show evidence beyond the bible or any religion views to prove your assumptions. 

POLONIUM HALOS MAY BE OBSERVED IN SAMPLES OF SOLID ROCK FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD
POLONIUM HALOS PROVE CREATION
The occurrence of these Polonium Halos in granite samples from all over the world indicates that the Earth was formed in an extremely short time, in complete harmony with the Biblical record of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1.

RE: you show no proof, beside mens words from a book. Evidence please. as for the big bang, your souce used of course a christian view would come up with all these, were the evidence. 

Henry M Morris: I knew it, he was a creationist, christian, theist, once again were is your proof. 

====================================================================================

Here I will post some videos of the evolution, pregnancy takes place, Evolution; as described in the definition: Complex form, development, evolving, as my opponent said, change is when something mutated to a whole different thing. Which then he did not understand the definition of true evolution. So we will take that quote as stated by my opponent. 

Change= sperm + Egg (male and female) take that mutated, as one, which then change starts to progress, from two organisms to evolve (develope, evolutionize, change, mutation, growth all the same) into a fetus, then evolved into a baby, then evolved to a child, evolved to a young adult, then evolved into a grown adult, then finally elderly. small detail of the true evolution plus as all describe. 

Video 1) 1st month
Video 2) 2nd month
Video 3) 3rd month
Video 4) 4th Month
Video 5) 5th Month
Video 6) 6th Month
Video 7) 7th Month
Video 8) 8th Month 
Video 9) 9th Month

Before the videos are posted, let my opponent know, this is Evolution. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you view these videos (if you do) realise this is the Burden of Proof of Evolution, but my opponent will more likely tell of verses. That is ok, I will just keep proving my point with true evidence. 

Evolution Definition: (to remember how used)

 



any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of theairplane.


2.
a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decadesof research.


3.
Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes asmutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


4.
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structureor institutions.


5.
a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as ina machine.
(source on bottom)

That is true Evolution, its all around us, regardless how it is used, we live in the process of evolution, growth, development, mutation of cells to humans, evolution of society, the evolution from the change of night to day, as day to night, winter to summer, as summer to winter. etc.. many examples of proof of evolution, many different ways. 

The main proof is Pregnancy, how organisms, becomes cells, to create a fetus, to then evolve into a baby, etc. My opponent is also proof of evolution, for he will develope, growth, evolve into elderly as time passes. 

That is Evolution. 

Sources 

Videos are from youtube

Definition used of evolution: 
http://dictionary.reference.com...

 

Pro

This is patently false.

according to my opponents own source the biology definition is:

"Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

RE: My opponent clearly did not read my previous round; were I gave the definiton of EVOLUTION, I corrected the definiton (bottom of previous round).

I should win this debate based on this alone as this is known as

"bate and switch"

RE: My opponent got the bate and switch by someone else, so he plagerized, someone elses words, I know for a fact he would not of said this without help. Plus my opponent needs to realize this topic is about Evolution, there is no bate and switch. There is not a specific of evolution, the topic is evolution. When my opponent does this, it means he denys the evidence and proof gaven in my previous argument. He seen with his own eyes, he seen the Evolution definition I gave on the bottom of my previous argument. My opponent totally avoided, my whole argument.
(I will give the source were my opponent plagerized a username muted words on the bottom of this argument)

Further more, my opponent has not dealt with any of my arguments but merely dismissed them out of hand.

RE: I have delt with all his arguments, if you look at the previous arguments, but then he said I dismissed them out of hand. Clearly my opponent is using the win over votes by scam technique, If my opponent said "my opponent has not dealt with any of my arguments" then "but yet merely dismissed them out", so my opponent just admitted I had dealt with his arguments, but if you look how I handle his arguments, I just debunked them. Like many debates on here does, debunks someones claims, its part of debating.

Any votes for pro merely demonstrate a biased voter who fails to actually read the material.

RE: My opponent is using the guilty technique, were he states a, oh if any voters, vote pro, they are biased, untrue. Voters this is an opinion, you see my opponent does not realise, voting goes off of who makes better conduct, who deals with ones arguments (which I have dealt with his arguments), also who shows proof, who educated the viewers, who used good conduct, (which I have gave great evidence of evolution, I know in the beginning I misread the definiton, but as all the viewers read, I did fix the definition of Evolution).
=====================================================================================

My opponent clearly have not place any evidence, he clearly has not speak of my arguments, he avoided everything I have said. So in this round I will give a description from the previous argument of evolution, to keep everyone up to date on what is going on.

Before I do, I will like to take a second to review my opponent final round, my opponent just like his recent debates, he will use a sneaky argument. My opponent will copy and paste, quotes from the book of the bible, of Genesis. Now that would be an invalid argument unless, my opponent shows sufficient proof, this really accord. He would have to go beyond the book, to show actual proof. My claims of evolution, I have shown proof, I have explained, I gave a definition of Evolution (full definition bottom of 3rd round).

Round 4 Conclusion:
Evolution: Process of devolopment, change, growth, "mutation" stated my opponent.
I gave the visual proof of evolution, I shown different definition of evolution, pregnancy is the best evidence we have of evolution. Sperm Cell + Egg Cell= a baby in nine months, Videos shows the change, the development, mutation, growth (evolution). Visual Evidence.
Plants= Seed + Water + nutrients= change, development, mutation (evolves from a seed to a plant) growth, aka evolution.

I have shown visual proof, My opponent has not gave any proof besides claims from a book, and christian sources, my opponent surely avoided everything I have said. He misquoted me not just once (Which I have fixed the misquote) but again he misquoted me. This bait-and-catch thing was said by another person the source will be on the bottom, but when he accepted this debate, he read the topic that is evolution. I never baited, my opponent was very aware of my arguments before he said something like that. My opponent failed to twice to refute my arguments, I refuted his arguments as we can clearly see.

Source were my opponent plagerazed someone elses words, when he seen very clearly and was not baited, he knew what i was arguing. Then this was said 3 rounds after the beginning of this debate, so here is the source.

Posted by Muted 1 day ago

Aceviper, you're playing a case of bait-and-switch. Anyway, would you like to debate the topic of evolution in a molecules-to-man sense?

http://www.debate.org...

Con

POLONIUM HALOS MAY BE OBSERVED IN SAMPLES OF SOLID ROCK FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD

Polonium Halos could have formed only if the rapidly decaying Polonium atoms, and the Halos of radioactive particles around the atoms, had been instantly encased in solid rock, with the emission of radioactive particles preserved as Polonium Halos.

These observable Polonium Halos provide undeniable evidence that the first created Polonium atoms were instantly preserved in solid granite, since the half life of Polonium is 3 minutes at most.

POLONIUM HALOS PROVE CREATION

Polonium Halos are found in granite samples all over the world, and may be viewed using a microscope.

The occurrence of these Polonium Halos in granite samples from all over the world indicates that the Earth was formed in an extremely short time, in complete harmony with the Biblical record of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1.

http://www.freechristianteaching.org......

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

"Evolution Could Never Happen at All"

is from;

http://www.icr.org......

Transitional Fossils

"There are NO transitional fossils!!!

All you have is bones in the dirt. You put your interpretation on them. You can not prove that those bones had children never mind children different than themselves!!! (which has NEVER been observed EVER).

There are NO transitional fossils, even if there was 1 supposed transitional fossil somewhere then my opponent failed to show it. There simple are NONE."

http://debate.org...






There yeh go, good evidence for creation and some good evidence against evolution

I AM NOT DEBATING AGAINST "CHANGE" or "GROWTH"

change happens.

things change.

things grow.

for future reference when I am debating evolution I am talking about molecules to men. not things growing. I call growing, "growing". not evolution. I call changing, "changing" not evolution.

I'm sorry this debate was so messy, I didn't want to accept it to begin with because my opponent is all over the place with definitions and very unclear about what he is talking about. He appears to be speaking english as a second language or something.

I provided good evidence for creation and several good pieces of evidence against evolution.

ALL UN-REFUTED.

Vote Con