Your choice out of some of my favorite topics
Debate Rounds (5)
Please choose one of the following topics, in parentheses is my position on the topic, so you will be arguing opposite:
Evolution vs. Creationism (Evolution)
Women in Combat (Con)
US military vs. Russian military (Russian)
9/11 was an inside job (Pro)
Russian T-90 vs. American Abrams (T-90)
AK-47 vs. M16 (AK-47)
Death Penalty (Con)
In Round One, no arguments, just state which of the above you would like to debate. Also please confirm your position on the topic. No new arguments in the last round. So! Let's begin! Any questions can be answered in the comments.
I would be honored to debate you on the topic of Evolution vs Creationism (Creationism)
Now, let's begin.
Proof for evolution can be found in many different forms, the first of which, is simple fossilized evidence.
There are many examples of a gradual change in bone structure of different organisms throughout history. A prominent and obvious example is horse (specifically, their legs and hooves):
(If you scroll down, you can see the change in the leg of the horse)
Humans have 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, and 80% with cows. This doesn't mean that we came from cows or cats, but it does show that we had a common ancestor.
These similarities can even be observed in human embryos. In early stages of development, humans have gills. They do not actually function, but slits form on the side of the embryo's throat which later close up again. Humans also have webbed hands and feet when in early stages of development.
A common anti-evolution argument is that we cannot observe it happening now, which is false. An experiment has been conducted on E. Coli over the course many years, and has managed to greatly increase the heat resistance of the bacteria. It is actually not so far-fetched to believe that this experimental group of E. Coli may eventually become a thermo-philic species.
In summary, all of the above shows that organisms change over time, and if enough time passes, it is logical that they change so much to the point where they can be categorized as another organism entirely.
I'm sorry for the short argument and I shall expand on it next Round. On to my opponent.
In order to debate the topic Creationism v Evolutionism and taking the side of the first you must first talk about God. To think that a God created all things just because is stupid and illogical but if someone also came to me and said literally nothing or now more recently big blobs if dust and debris created everything, is also just as stupid and illogical.
Now of course people of both side say that proof through observation and history and yes both do.
Some major questions for you I would liked answers in the next round please:
How did the dust and debris come into existence?
What made gravity cause this dust and debris foil into so such a small space exploded faster than light and still is expanding today?
Also from this dust and debris has made complex drugs like nicotine and morphine to creating not only numbers but equations and short cuts? If the dust was just dust how did it make literally everything, plasma, gas, liquid, and solid.
But we are talking Evolutionism v Creationism.
Problem with the Theory:
In order for macro-evolution or any evolution for that matter something must be making a biological decision to act upon changing to survive better in an environment. Animals cannot wish to be a better to way to survive in their habitat like humans can. So again more questions:
What is making this logical decision to adapt biologically with no want factor coming from the brain?
Since humans can wish and figure the wants they need to survive in an environment why are we not evolving at a faster rate than animals and much slower than micro-organisms?
That something that is toying with life, adapting His creation is God. God can use evolution to adapt what he has made like improving or modifying a minecraft castle. God has chosen to kill of animals like the dinosaurs.
Evolution and creation both can be true seeing that both cannot be completely disproved or proven. Also both can be done by God and God alone. I am also stopping my arguments short see ya next round.
Now, he says that: "big blobs if dust and debris created everything, is also just as stupid and illogical." which I disagree with, BUT this is not the subject of debate. If he would like, we can argue this another time.
My opponent's entire first half is addressing the Big Bang theory, which is not the subject of debate. However, I will address his question about: "If the dust was just dust how did it make literally everything, plasma, gas, liquid, and solid." Well, my opponent is, in essence, asking how everything (all of the complex chemical compounds) came to be from just dust. The process is actually quite simple, but very, very slow. My opponent may be aware of how stars obtain their energy, and this is the exact same process that creates the different elements. If he does not know, I will explain:
1. Dust and debris slowly coalesces into a large mass. As the mass grows larger, so does the gravity, attracting even more dust and debris.
2. Once an massive amount of dust has gathered, the pressure (especially near the center/core of the sphere) is enormous, which in turn creates heat energy.
3. The energy from pressure and heat makes the atoms "smash" together in a process known as nuclear fusion.
4. Once atoms smash together, their electrons, protons and neutrons become one, making a new element. For example, if two hydrogen atoms collide with this much force, then a new atom is created. A helium atom (because hydrogen has one proton, if two collide, there will be two protons which is a helium atom).
5. Now, there is a new element. This process then repeats, creating more and more elements. (The elements can then react with each other to form compounds)
Hopefully this cleared some things up.
Now, moving on to the subject at hand.
"In order for macro-evolution or any evolution for that matter something must be making a biological decision"
This is false. No conscience decision is made in order for an organism to evolve. The E. Coli bacteria I mentioned in Round 2 did not simply decide that they wanted to be heat resistant. Evolution occurs through natural selection, a process which I will describe below (simplified version):
There are actually two possibilities.
1. There is a group of organisms. (Let's say bugs, gray bugs)
2. A mutation occurs. Several bugs (or even one) are born black.
3. The black bugs reproduce, making more black bug offspring.
4. The bugs live in the woods, and it is harder for predators to see the black bugs because they don't stick out as much. Because of this, the gray bugs are being eaten more than the black bugs.
5. The gray bugs are either completely eradicated or become a negligible part of the population. Black bugs survive better.
6. You now have a completely different population.
This is a simplified example. Change in color isn't macro-evolution, this is just a simple scheme of things. (If my opponent would like, I could use a different, more drastic mutation to prove my point).
1. There is a group of organisms (same gray bug as before).
2. A mutation occurs and some of the bugs are born black.
3. The black bugs reproduce, making more black offspring.
4. There is a big storm, blowing sticks, leaves and, more importantly, bugs in all different directions.
5. The black bugs find themselves isolated from the gray bugs and so they only reproduce among themselves.
6. You now have another, completely different population.
Same applies as above, if my opponent would like a more drastic example, please request so.
"why are we not evolving at a faster rate than animals and much slower than micro-organisms?"
One of the reasons we are not evolving (we are, just very slowly) is because of globalization and advances in medicine. Globalization mixes people of all different races and does not allow for Possibility 2 to occur. Advances in medicine save many more lives, meaning genetically "weak" people can still survive. They continue contributing to the gene pool, not allowing for the "stronger" genes to dominate, because of this, the weak genes are not being killed off and remain a part of our gene pool. We evolve much slower than micro-organisms because micro-organisms reproduce much, much faster than we do. This allows greater opportunity for a mutation to occur, and then one of the above possible processes may take place.
I await my opponent's response.
You speak of the grey bugs/black bugs and why evolution can occur or rather why it does. These reasons however are micro evolution not macro. Yes there are black Labradors along with brown and white and even more there are huskies to poodles to pit bulls and so on. All these species of dog did have one common ancestor, a dog.
Mutations are not evolutions and the idea of one species turning into another species is absurd. In order for a species to somehow evolve into another still requires a decision and how does the species properly come to be? If only one new animal comes from parents of another and live with its parents species then how do more of the new species survive? Would it not just mate with the old species and start to give off spring of the old species? And if this is true what made evolution to choose humans to be intelligent and not like the other animals giving us the ability of language and the power to write them down and just be a higher intelligence than all other animals.
God told Moses atop of Mt Sinai that he created the world and the whole universe in just 7 days. Now tell me why couldn't of God just straight up told Moses 3500 years ago that yes great blobs of dust through gravity made fusion and new elements exploding and creating stars and planets including earth and then through millions of years humans came to be through evolution and here we are. Moses would either fall asleep and probably not comprehend this knowledge so God told him what he needed to know and said the appropriate answer for the appropriate time. God saying 7 days implemented the idea of Sabbath and back then in ancient times to have a whole day off of hard labor every week was a great idea and very intriguing point to stay orthodox. God really didn't spend much time on creation but was more focused on making good rules for the ancient Jews and how they should lead by example and become the beacon of the world.
The system also according fits just like evolution. Sedimentary rock layers on all continents prove that once earth was covered with water.
Fact of the matter is Creationism or Evolutionism God made it happen clear and simple.
Once again, I stress that no decision is made. Natural selection is not a conscience process in which the organisms "decide" whether or not they survive. They either live or die, not of their will.
"If only one new animal comes from parents of another and live with its parents species then how do more of the new species survive? Would it not just mate with the old species and start to give off spring of the old species?"
Yes this is a possibility, but:
1) Even if it does just mate with the regular species, the DNA pool will still be altered, especially if the mutation is a dominant gene.
2) As mentioned before, the organism could become isolate from the main group. This way, it will be able to form its own gene pool.
3) The regular animals could die (natural selection) off, leaving only the "mutants" alive.
"And if this is true what made evolution to choose humans to be intelligent and not like the other animals giving us the ability of language"
I would like to note that other animals also have the ability of language. Some as complex (if not more) as our own, and can even learn our language. For example dolphins. "Researchers in the United States and Great Britain have made a significant breakthrough in deciphering dolphin language in which a series of eight objects have been sonically identified by dolphins. Team leader, Jack Kassewitz of SpeakDolphin.com, "spoke" to dolphins with the dolphin"s own sound picture words. Dolphins in two separate research centers understood the words, presenting convincing evidence that dolphins employ a universal "sono-pictorial" language of communication.
The team was able to teach the dolphins simple and complex sentences involving nouns and verbs, revealing that dolphins comprehend elements of human language"
My opponent's next paragraph addresses Moses' "meeting" with God and what he was told by God. First of all, I mean no disrespect but, I do not believe religious texts are credible sources in this situation. Mostly because they have NO confirmation other than themselves (for the most part). My opponent brings up that "Sedimentary rock layers on all continents prove that once earth was covered with water." That is completely consistent with the scientific theory of the formation of the Earth.
So far my opponent has not attacked Evolution, nor has he done much to prove Creationism. He has only been using "Socratic questioning".
So far my case has been relatively unorganized, just a jumble of facts. I will attempt to tie them together to prove my case.
My contentions in Round 2 show that:
1) All organisms on Earth have a common ancestor. (It is evident, since we are so similar genetically)
2) Changes CAN, in fact, occur over time. While micro-evolution can occur (and can be easily noticed), given that life has been on Earth for billions of years, that is ample time for more drastic changes to occur. The changes simply stack up. For example, the evolution of the horse hoof. That is only one small section of time for a quite noticeable change. After that, what if the organism grows bigger? (It did, if one takes a look at the skeletal evidence). Then maybe a longer neck, different tail etc. The possibilities are endless and each would just stack onto the previous to make the organism even more unique from its predecessors.
I believe that Evolution (and the scientific theory of the formation of the Earth, for that matter) are far more logical than the Creationist theory simply because of the vast oceans of evidence and clues. Everything from the fossil record, to DNA tests, to carbon dating proves the Evolution theory.
CountCheechula forfeited this round.
Please extend my arguments, and thank you for the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.