The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

creatioism better explains the universe than theory of evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 18196
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

xxx200

Pro

the theory of evolution said that all the creatures evolve by naural selection. they evolve by natural section from a common ancestor. brieafly speaking, inherited traits (genes) flow from one ancestor to another. evolution occurs whn there is a change in the structure of genes.now accoring to darwin and evolutionary biolgist richard dawkins, this change in genes caused by natural selection.nature selects randomly some people and evolve them into a better one.

now friends, in this genetic era, we all know that to manipulate a piece of gene, it takes huge effeort, both moneary and technological, mosty intelligent. it cannot happen naturally. then how come, evolution (change in genetic structure) happens naturally ? out of the blue ?

my theory is that this evolution is done by some entity, hugely advanced in technology and intelligence a creator. what do you think ?
socialpinko

Con

To start off, my opponent's definition of evolution is flaws in itself. I would like him to shown specifically where either Darwin or Professor Dawkins ever claims that "nature selects randomly" who will evolve. According to the definition of natural selection it is, "A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations."[1] It is not a random event, but a tendency for those best suited to their environment to survive longer and reproduce, thus passing those genes on whereas those not suited for their environment are less likely to reproduce and pass their genes on. Natural selection is a tendency, not a purposeful event.

Contention: Artificially manipulating genes is hard for us intelligent, sentient, and overall purposeful beings to accomplish. Blind natural processes therefore cannot do it.

As I showed before, natural selection is not nature randomly 'choosing' some to survive and then manipulating their genes. Natural selection means that if one is suited to their environment, for instance a tiger having an extra good sense of smell, they are more likely to survive longer and reproduce then another tiger in the same environment with a dull sense of smell. This is not guaranteed but it is a tendency. When these animals survive, they pass along their genes to their progeny, thus passing along the genes which helped them to survive into the succeeding gene pool. If a sharp sense of smell continues to be helpful as an aid to survival, it will continue to be passed down, eventually beating out the genes for a dull sense of smell. In this way, the majority of the population in succeeding generations will have sharper senses of smell and would have evolved via completely natural processes.

Whether it is easy or hard for humans to replicate this process is irrelevant completely. Natural selection is a process whereby over generations and generations of those with superior traits surviving pass those genes into the succeeding gene pool. Human beings trying to alter types of genes is beside the point! It's a completely different type of process. Surely my opponent would not discard the thought that the water cycle is a wholly natural process whereby water is supplemented to different types of niches in different forms and that because it would require effort on the part of humans to replicate the act, it cannot be done naturally.

Conclusion: An entity, creator, "hugely advanced in technology and intelligence" would be needed to consciously evolve living organisms through lack of a functioning natural process.

Now as I have already shown, this can be done completely naturally. This completely destroys the need for an intelligent creator and thus adding it in to our theory is not only unnecessary but intellectually dishonest. It is based on faulty assumptions already disproven over and over. It also runs into the problem of being at odds with my opponent's first argument. He claimed that because no organism could evolve naturally over time, an intelligent creator is needed to guide evolution. However how did aforementioned creator come to be? Did it evolve out of natural processes, was it created by an even more advanced creator, or is it eternal? If it be the first then my opponent has conceded, if it be the second than my opponent's argument falls into infinite regress, and if it be the third than my opponent's explanation surely has more faults and errors than any of the alleged issues he brings with unguided natural selection.

[1] http://www.biology-online.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

xxx200 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

xxx200 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Pro

the process of natural seection is that thos animals who are more powerfull will survive and their successor will have more power and advantage than their predecessor : thus new species are evolved. example sharp teeth tigers. sharp teeth tigers will survived and dull teeth tigers wll get killed. n the successors of sharp teeth tigers will have teeth sharper than before.: this is how evolution take place according to evolutionists.

but the example shows that a feature of the tiger species got improved a little. the tiger species, those who survived did not change into something totally different than tiger. but darwin claimed just that: a completely new species has evolved from a totally different species: human evolved from old world monkeys.

now the question is how come darwin know that human evolves from old monkey ? what is the evidence ?
socialpinko

Con

To start, my opponent has dropped his argument from the complexity of manipulating genes. My opponent also has not responded to my points against an 'intelligent designer' and instead has spent the last round asking questions about how evolution works and has continued to show his lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. He has brought a new point this round, that environmentally caused changes in a species are too miniscule and not significant enough to change one species into another. I will respond to that point here.

My opponent claims that "those who survived did not change into something totally different than tiger." My opponent again shows his general lack of understanding on this subject. "Evolutionists" do not claim that a change in the sharpness of teeth in the general population of tigers will cause them to evolve into a totally new species from that alone. Evolutionary theory states that species can evolve into new species as a result of lhundreds of thousands or millions of years of such "miniscule" changes.

For example, consider a population of chimpanzees who are split in half through adverse geological conditions i.e. an earhquake that physically separates half the population from the others. The physical conditions and general locales will have changed the factors acting on the species and so they would evolve separately, perhaps in different ways from each other. Now if we looked at these species after say 1 million years of separation, they would look very different considering the fat that as physical conditions change, so do traits favored by natural selection.

Extra thick fur could be advantageous to an animal living in the Artic, though disadvantages to an animal living in the Sahara. As such, natural selection might favor thick fur for animal A and gradually hase it out for animal B. But back to our example, after 1 million years of geographic separation and different survival factors acting on the population, the conclusion comes from no stretch of the imagination that different traits would be favored among the two populations and thus they would evolve differently, perhaps into different species altogether.

I believe I have adequately shown that the "miniscule" changes observed by my opponent gradually lead to larger changes as environmental conditions change, while my opponent has yet to prove substantially that natural processes are incapable of evolving organisms, eventually resulting in a biologically diverse range of life we see today on our planet and that an intelligent creator does not run into the same problems as the supposed problems my opponent brings with naturally occurring evolution(as I brought up in R2).
Debate Round No. 4
xxx200

Pro

xxx200 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Let's get this over with. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
What's funny about my response? I thought it was obvious that I was annoyed when I wrote that.
Posted by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
Social, you should put something humorous in every once in a while, because 5 rounds of this may get boring. However, your negation sounds pretty funny to read.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
xxx200socialpinkoTied
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: F.
Vote Placed by wiploc 6 years ago
wiploc
xxx200socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't understand evolution. He argues as if his confusion is reason for us to reject evolution. Pro somehow assumes that we'll embrace creationism if we reject evolution, but he provides us no argument that would allow us to do that.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
xxx200socialpinkoTied
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: xxx200 loses conduct for his three forfeits during the debate and his ignorance of the evolutionary theory is excellent demonstrated by socialpinko's well-thought out explanantion of the mechanism of natural selection...
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
xxx200socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote 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: Forfeit and Pro doesn't address any of Con's arguments at all.