The Instigator
Aceviper2011
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

There is proof of evolution/no proof of creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
Aceviper2011
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,585 times Debate No: 29801
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (129)
Votes (6)

 

Aceviper2011

Pro

My screen name is Aceviper2011

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate with me, also I been looking forward to debating my opponent from some time now.

I would like for my opponent to understand something clearly, when we speak of Evolution we are not talking mini topics; that religion has placed, for science, as an argument. For evolution is right in front of our eyes, also visual, physically proven as we speak.

My opponents job as con; is to give us proof of creation.

Rules:
-one specific rule; if you site a verse from the bible, please also place the name of the bible used, in my opponents arguments, I will do the same, if I result to the bible to counter claim the arguments from my opponent.

-Now I understand sources are important in a debate, I shall let my opponent also know, I aceviper2011 will probually not use allot of resources, I'll mainly try to use my knowledge, my views. (lets be clear, my opponent is allow any sources needed, he is not limited, but we both if used sources shall cite sources at the end of each round, or after the paragraph argument, what ever works for my opponent on citing sources.

-First round is acceptance and also to be clear if the two rules are understood, I know as the starting of this debate, I'll have to state my argument for my opponent to counter act. For the second round I will began the argument on this topic, now let my opponent know, the way to prove creation is, proving the existing of this god he uses.

(in reality we both have two topics on this matter; I suggest we both for strategic reason to do as they please with there debate).

Closure 1st round note:

I want to thank my opponent again, I hope he uses the first round as acceptance so I can place an argument on my second round for his counter act. I hope my opponent enjoys this debate.
FritzStammberger

Con


My opponent stated;


"evolution is right in front of our eyes"



- What on earth are you talking about? no one has EVER seen ANYTHING EVER change from one animal into another through mutations.



"also visual, physically proven as we speak."



- 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.


- third, evolution is fiercely debated even among secular scientists.



evolution is a deception and a false belief system, it requires faith and is not science.



note: 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.



- about 6000 years ago God created everything.



-about 4500 years ago there was a catastrophic, world wide flood.



I believe that people accept the theory of evolution because they do not take the time to critically examine the so called evidence for themselves.



I look forward to our discussion here and hope that some can have an open enough mind to re-examine their assumptions and put aside their biases.



Best Regards,


Fritz


Debate Round No. 1
Aceviper2011

Pro

Evolution:

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

I want my opponent to keep that definition in mind, thats the biology definition, since he mention of going to college 2 years on biology.

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.

RE: My opponent is confused; as he not seen this bible, he speaks of biology (study of living organisms, DNA, Etc..) tooken from college, as misinterpretations of data, assumptions, deceptions. Wonder if he truely reads this bible, based of true deception, obviouse misinterpretations of data, also true deception. The thing he does not realise taking these classes, he did not want to open his eyes to the truth, thats why he quickly disregard of its teaching.

Let me say this, to my opponent, if he took biology in college, then he speaks of the earth only being 6,000 years old, but wait then he speaks of 20,000 years old. I know my opponent learned about Dinosaurs, once lived beyond 6,000 to 20,000 years old, DNA proves that, if you do not believe in DNA, then I feel sorry for you.

about 6000 years ago God created everything.

RE:
Did you just tell us 20,000 years old; that basically you do not know. Let me remind you in your book 1 day is 1 day. If it was thousands, it would of said thousands, not one day.

I believe that people accept the theory of evolution because they do not take the time to critically examine the so called evidence for themselves.

RE:
Most people accept evolution, because its more logical, more evidence, actually can be tested. The only thing creationist can do is say words from a book without testing, only using limited knowledge as far as the words read.

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

My Arguments:

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

B) Knowing my opponents arguments on this subject, he will at the end of the last round use it to copy and paste, a book from this bible. Genises 1, 1-? about this creation belief, so I will take a spare moment to debunk that assumption, well we can call it the theory of creation. Like I said, it is words from a book, just like all the other books created during its time. I want to point out two different verses from two different versions of these bibles, both on the same religion christian beliefs of creation.

Order of things "Made" in Genesis 1

Order of things "Formed" in Genesis 2

Vegetation (made first - 3rd day) Adam (formed first)
Animals (made second - 5th and 6th day) Vegetation (formed second)
Male (made third - 6th day) Animals (formed third)
Female (made fourth - 6th day) Eve (formed fourth)


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:

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.


FritzStammberger

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"

Debate Round No. 2
Aceviper2011

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...

FritzStammberger

Con


My opponent stated in his first premise that the biology definition of evolution is:



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



He goes on to state:



"I want my opponent to keep that definition in mind, thats the biology definition"



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."



http://dictionary.reference.com...



Thus my opponent is wrong about the biology definition of evolution and is defending an irrelevant definition.



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


"bate and switch"



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



This is an easy vote for con.



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

Debate Round No. 3
Aceviper2011

Pro

Yes I did state that definition as biology; but as you read my previous argument, I realised, and gave you not only the biology definition; but also the other definitions of evolution.

My opponent still has not realise we are debating EVOLUTION.

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
Muted

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...


























FritzStammberger

Con

- I am sorry but this debate is no longer worth my time.

- My opponent has hopelessly confused the issue and I am not going to write pages of information in the 5th round to try and correct it.

- next time use proper definitions in the beginning please.
Debate Round No. 4
Aceviper2011

Pro

My opponent has forfeit, My opponent stated I did not use a proper definition, I have used the definiton of Evolution, my opponent seen it was true, thats why he couldnt refute my arguments. Evolution does mean what I posted, from the dictionary.

Arguments all extend.

The reason why my opponent said this debate was not worth his time, because he knew I was telling the truth, that I have met the burdon of proof.
FritzStammberger

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







Debate Round No. 5
129 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dragonfang 1 year ago
Dragonfang
Do people even read the definition before starting debates?
Posted by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
See ya around town "connect the dots impaired society. Youre slowing us down kids, youre a heavy ball and chain for an evolving Human Conciousness :)

BigKids 4:46--Actually the whole planets obesession with an idol that monitors their sex life is so childish, unless you step back from the situation objectively, the ridiculous nature of that belief will Not be evident, and the ball and chain of outdated beliefs keep dragging Mankind down, so far down and unaccountable, they blame the gun :)

BigKids 6:33--Get a clue kids, without the pages of barbarism, slavery, sexism, who to kill and why, and the obvious plagarism from other nonsense thruought time, the bible would be as thick as a dime :)

Ouchies 11:6--Proliferating a religious fairy tale in front of the Genie is akin to jumping off a high dive platform into an industrial sized wood chipper :)
Posted by giraffelover 1 year ago
giraffelover
I have no more comments. The vote has long passed, and so no matter what Sagey, devient genie, or I say will change the vote. I shall spend time at other debates.
Posted by Sagey 1 year ago
Sagey
So true Devient: Real scientists don't distinguish between macroevolution and microevolution at all. The use of such terms proves that the writings are simply Creationist propaganda, nothing more.

The nearest term scientists use to anything approaching macroevolution is Phenotypes, because science regards both micro and macro as simply grey areas where a single genotype may give rise to several phenotypes due to very small changes in DNA structure.

No real scientists discuss Macroevolution as a scientific concern, unless they are Creationists pretending to be scientific.

Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by Sagey 1 year ago
Sagey
BTW: Wiki is a contribution based site, nothing on Wiki can be taken as genuinely true.
The Scientists agains evolution .org site was compiled by a Creationist for creationist propaganda. It is not a genuine science, nor scientist site and all the rest are just public answers composed by Creationists.

If it appeared in 'Scientific America' or 'New Scientist' as legitimate, then we might consider it as evidence for your case.

Your evidence for your case is just pure dumb propaganda, no evidence there whatsoever.

Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
Mainstream scientists, don't attach the same importance to macro- vs. microevolution that creationists do. The terms macro- and microevolution were coined in 1927, casting doubt in an improper way has been going on for a long time. 1927 science still thought the Milky Way was the entire universe. Come on kids catch up.

It's nice of creationists to admit that microevolution occurs, but the truth is that there is no magical dividing line between micro- and macroevolution. Biological evidence shows that changes within species are caused by the same natural forces that eventually cause differences between species, genera, families, and all the way up the line.

GoodFolks 11:5--The religious dont see themselves as bigots, not because they have an evil mind, or the mind that bashes homosexuals, its the poison that brainwashes religion saying 'thats just how it is, there are people who cannot be free they are called slaves...... thats just the way it is, there are people who cannot sit in front on the bus, they are called black......... its just how it is, there are people who cannot get married, they are called gay.

Well Played christian nation, well played :)

BigKids 12:49--There are many ways to describe the tool known as science, however, the best way to describe science is by David Guetta, Sexy B-I-T-C-H :)
Posted by Sagey 1 year ago
Sagey
ROFL! Giraffe Ol' M8!
Those sites you referenced are the Creationist propaganda I mentioned.
Their content is untrue and nowhere near real.

You've been completely fooled.

If you believe in those, then you are beyond help.

You've been brainwashed and you really need to start your education at pre-school level.
Posted by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
"uses human sacrifice to prove a point about love and forgiveness?"

I never said anything about permissible, Im saying everything about disgusting, immature, vile and immoral :)

Didnt some guy named jessie, or josey,or jesus come to earth to be a human sacrifice?

Gross and disgusting you have calls on Lines 1 and 2, its vile and barbaric can they come over?
Posted by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
your astute ability to filibuster some jibberish from an outdated book thats nothing short of plagarism is a very interesting talent you possess.

It seems that some of your delusional peers, fail to realize some important things

"name ONE time when the Bible tells us human sacrifice is permissible"

I never said it made it permissible. I said:

"How does any number of human understandings, being less than 100% accepted, automatically mean that the reason for all the stars and galaxies is concerned with what two consenting adults do naked" :)
Posted by giraffelover 1 year ago
giraffelover
I never said women should cover their head when they pray, or that child sacrifice is ok. The Bible says a woman should cover her head when she prays, but it only says that because of the culture back then. As for human sacrifice, name ONE time when the Bible tells us human sacrifice is permissible, aside from pagan culture, which clearly didn't believe the Old Testament.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
Aceviper2011FritzStammbergerTied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm actually surprisedto give Con S&G, but Pro seems to have lost the thread of S&G in this debate. Con, unfortunately, did not make a good case, and loses conduct for "...this debate is no longer worth my time."
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
Aceviper2011FritzStammbergerTied
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: Pro had horrible grammar. Con was more convincing overall.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
Aceviper2011FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons best accomplishment in this debate was earning a shot at a world record for being irrelevant. Ridiculous just scratches the surface of denying evolution
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
Aceviper2011FritzStammbergerTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with Pro's position, he's taken a partial burden of proof upon himself and not fulfilled it. All Con had to do is provide some small evidence that points towards the Creation myth being real, and he has fulfilled that. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, so to present such a dichotomy as the debate topic presents a dual burden of proof: 1, to prove evolution has evidence, which Pro did do; and 2, to prove that Creation has no evidence, which Pro failed to do. Arguments to Con. S&G to Con. Sources to Pro, though it didn't really help him any. For the purposes of judging this debate I considered the bible as a neutral reliability as opposed to negative reliability.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 1 year ago
tmar19652
Aceviper2011FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Fritz conceded in round 4
Vote Placed by Muted 1 year ago
Muted
Aceviper2011FritzStammbergerTied
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: Pro's S/G is atrocious, even though Con made a few mistakes as well. Conduct goes to Con because of several reasons. (A): Pro used too small a text size in R3, requiring me to copy-paste the round into something else just to read. (B): Pro used a definition of "evolution" which Con did not dispute, Con provided a counter definition, which Pro did not dispute. Arguments go to Con because Pro dropped more Con arguments than Con dropped Pro arguments.