The Instigator
creationismisright
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
n7
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

creation v.s evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
n7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 778 times Debate No: 54394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

creationismisright

Pro

hello i am starting a creation evolution online debate with you i believe (and am pro) for creationism con will be against creationists

to start off the debate i will have a question why does evolution defy physics it defy' s the second law of thermodynamics if some high school football players spin some little kids clockwise on a merry-go-round here is what will happen step #1: the kids will say "faster faster" step #2: at about 30 miles an hour their hanging on for their life step #3: at 60 miles an hour their yelling but their yelling something different "STOP STOP SLOW DOWN" at step 4: they still go faster at step 5: the child will fall off but will spin off clockwise. until he hits resistance like a tree or a pole. notice how the kids spin clockwise well if the big bang is true why do we have planets spinning backwards?
n7

Con

Thanks creationismisright for initiating this debate.


Pro’s argument attacks evolution on the basis of angular momentum, not the second law of thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy increasing in an isolated system [1], not momentum. That’s the minor error in his argument, the major error is that the nebular hypothesis can perfectly explain why planets like Venus are rotating the wrong way. The conservation of angular momentum says that if a body is rotating in some direction, then some other part is rotating in the opposite [2]. With planets like Venus, an object hit it in the early chaotic universe and “the combined momentum between the two objects averaged out to the current rotational speed and direction.” [3]


Anyway, the big bang and astrophysics have nothing to do with evolution. Even if Pro’s argument is correct, his conclusion doesn’t follow.


I will now present an argument in favor of evolution


Genetics


We are very genetically similar to other creatures. The best explanation for this is evolution. One example is ERVs, which are short for endogenous retroviruses. These are sequences in a genome that come from ancient viral infections. They get passed down and remain inside the genome. So, if a common ancestor had a viral infection, then we should expect to see ERVs in similar places when we examine two species.


Douglas Theobald said


There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.” [4]


Here is the chart




The best explanation for this is that humans and chimps indeed had a common ancestor.


Evolution is affirmed. Back to Pro




[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

[2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

[3] http://www.universetoday.com...

[4] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012 <http://www.talkorigins.org...;

Debate Round No. 1
creationismisright

Pro

yes sorry i was doing research on the second law of thermodynamics and got it mixed up with the law of angular motion. but anyway i have another question why are there over 6 planets going backwards (including moons) did they all get hit with asteroids? that seems very unlikely! also forks and spoons are similar did they evolve from the knife?also if there is a change in 3 nucleotides you will die well evolution needs a change in 3 MILLION nucleotides so how do you explain that? plus did you know Richard Dawkins himself says there may be proof of an intelligent designer here is the proof

https://www.youtube.com...

also is the big bang not an astronomical event in evolution? if it is not then your entire belief does not work. and one last closing question where do you get your morals from? because as far as I can tell there is no way to get your morals here is a quote from Jeffery Dahmer a mass murderer

"If a person doesn"t think there is a God to be accountable to, then"then what"s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That"s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing""

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

i believe in the bible and that it is the TRUE word of god and that is where i stand my ground

back to you n7
n7

Con

Thanks again.


Retrograde Motion


Pro hasn’t actually shown that retrograde motion contradicts the big bang in the first place. Nor has he shown it to be in connection to evolution, so it’s a complete strawman. Anyway, yes, the three planets and the moons could easily be the result of the early chaotic solar system. As David Palmer put it.


How a planet rotates is related to how it was formed from the accretion of planetesimals. If more impacts occur on one side than the other, then it will tend to rotate accordingly. But the impacts are largely random. Tidal effects can also change the rotation." [1]


Pro claims it’s highly unlikely, but this is a bare assertion fallacy. This shows Pro misunderstands the nebular hypothesis. It’s not like the solar system was always like ours today, it’s likely that our solar system was at first highly chaotic [2].


The big bang is an astronomical event, but evolution has nothing to do with astronomy. Pro says somehow my entire belief system doesn’t work if this isn’t true. This is yet again a bare assertion fallacy, he has not demonstrated.


Genetics


Pro tries to attack this argument by using an analogy with silverware. However, his fallacy here is a false analogy. Silverware cannot reproduce among themselves and they pass down no genetic code. When we reproduce, we pass down a genetic code.


Let’s say creationist dad is on the TV show Maury, he is accused of sleeping with atheist women and getting her pregnant. Creationist dad goes through genetic testing and is found to be the father of the child. However, creationist dad claims just because they are genetically similar doesn’t mean they are related. Hey, forks and spoons are similar he says, so he may not be the father! He says “Perhaps we came from the same creator”


We see how his objection is flawed. Pro claims without citation that a small change in the DNA can kill you. However if this were true, it doesn’t mean evolution is false. As evolution is a slow process, a million changes wouldn’t happen in one creature at once. Gene-level mutations happen all the time without harm [3].


Of course intelligent design may be true, it’s highly unlikely. Even if Dawkins went so far to accept it, this means nothing. The truth of evolution is not based on Richard Dawkins. However, Dawkins did not. The video Pro cited is edited. It is full of cuts and when examining the dialogue, Stein will ask a question and Dawkins will answer a complete different one. Youtube user Potholer54 showed how edited this video was. See the video to the right.


Morality


This is a philosophical question that has nothing to do with the science of evolution. Nor is it necessary to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Thus it’s not relevant, however I will address it.


Pro quotes mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer saying under atheism there is no morality. However, Dahmer is a mass murderer, not a philosopher. His word should hardly be taken without examination. I can find no reason for quoting him only to create a guilt by association. Atheism can have morality for a simple reason, we all have a survival instinct. It is better for us to survive in a group and in order to do that we can’t murder and rape everyone.


However, what if God were to command all believers to kill babies? Would it then be morally correct to do so? If so, then you’re morality is arbitrary based on God and whatever he says is moral, even if it’s morally wrong to us. If God wouldn’t do that or if he did it wouldn’t be moral, then God is subject to a set of moral laws above him. Meaning atheists can just cut out the middle man.


The moral argument fails.


Pro’s arguments have been refuted, where mine stay standing.


Back to Pro.


[1] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[2] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

[3] http://www.nature.com...

Debate Round No. 2
creationismisright

Pro

so n7 you are telling me i am a liar? note that person who did the video that claimed it was edited was an atheist so of course he is going to pretend the video is edited for the sake of evolution. also god is perfect and holy so he would not order everyone to kill babies. and everyone is saying nowadays "you have to have equality" so are you saying that that particular person because of what he did should not even be considered worthy of being listened to? yes i understand the fact that he did terrible things but if evolution is true and its all by chance everyone is worthless. we all came from soup so it doesn't really matter. another thing with equality is why does your theory eat up tax dollars while the truth is being pushed away? and another thing is the moon moves away about an inch away from us every year so why isn't the moon far extremely away? that makes no sense!

back to you con
n7

Con

I am not calling you a liar, I am saying you have been misguided by liars. Pro attempts to rebut the video by claiming it’s hoaxed. However, one could easily look at the original video if you don’t believe Potholer54. You will see he’s right. Pro rejects the video by using an ad hominem fallacy. He essentially rejects it because of cui bono. Potholer would benefit and since he’s an atheist, it must be fake. This is logically flawed.


Retrograde motion


This was dropped by Pro. I win in this section.


Morality


Pro claims God would never do such a thing. This would imply God is bond to a set of moral laws above him. This means Pro concedes morality is not from God. As where else would perfection come from other than himself? On a side note, the God of the bible has ordered the death of babies in 1 Samuel 15:3. Pro misunderstands what I meant by a guilt by association. I am not stating because he’s a murderer, his words are flawed. I’m saying that he cited a mass murderer in order to demoralize atheism. He tries to link Dahmer to atheism, trying to make it guilty by association. His whole rant with equality is nothing else but an equivocation. When most use equality doesn’t mean all views are equal. He also goes onto say morality can’t exist with evolution, but he dropped my argument from atheistic morality. Meaning, I win in this section


Genetics


Pro drops my argument from ERVs, I win on this section too.


Misc and the moon


Pro says “why does your theory eat up tax dollars while the truth is being pushed away”


This begs the question, as he is assuming creationism to be true. However, he has yet to demonstrate it. Furthermore, evolution has been demonstrated the superior theory. We wouldn’t want alchemy and astrology taught alongside other subjects, because they are pseudoscience. Like creationism.


His argument with the moon is saying since the moon has been moving at a few inches a year, then the moon should be much further than now. Dave E. Matson shows how this is no problem [1].


The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.


The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii . Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!



Pro has dropped most of his arguments like retrograde motion and my genetic argument. None of his arguments had anything to do with evolution. Evolution has been demonstrated the better theory.


Thanks.



[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
creationismisrightn7Tied
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 dropped all the relative arguments (arguments con). Pro also used logical fallacy after logical fallacy, even arguing an irrelevant point (conduct con). Con's sources were also extremely reliable while pro's... (sources con). Lastly, pro failed to capitalize his letters through most of the debate (spelling and grammar con).
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
creationismisrightn7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro drops all relevant arguments. Con addresses Pro's initial argument and presents an argument for evolution from genetics which Pro ignores.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 3 years ago
The_Gatherer
creationismisrightn7Tied
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 made very little argument for his case, actually asking more questions than he attempted to answer. The facts which were put forward by pro were factually incorrect. Pro did not use any reliable sources. Con made very good detailed argument which appears to be factually correct, which were referenced with may reliable sources. The general conduct of con throughout the debate was also better, as well as the presentation of his argument.