The Instigator
ben39
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CaptainDaveyJones
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

creation vs 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CaptainDaveyJones
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,161 times Debate No: 44357
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

ben39

Pro

I believe that there is no evidence for evolution and all of the known laws of nature known to men contradict it.
For example the Conservation of Angular Momentum which states, that when a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction as the original object. That"s easy to understand since the outside is moving faster than the inside. Therefore, if the Big Bang occurred as the Evolutionists would have us believe, how come Uranus, Venus and possibly Pluto are spinning backwards?
How come 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards?
Why are there entire galaxies spinning backwards?

Do i need to continue doesn't just this prove that evolution could not happen. i mean all you need is one fact that contradicts the theory for the theory to be useless. If there was no Big Bang then there was no evolution.
But i will not stop I will give you more evidence for example let us look at The 1st law of Thermodynamics it states that "matter and or energy cannot be created or destroyed." So where did everything come from in the Big Bang and what made it start spinning? Who bought the gas to run this machine?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is Entropy and says "everything is tending towards disorder." This is completely incongruent with and the very opposite of Evolution which believes that everything is getting better, stronger, faster, smarter and more complex in time. However, as we can clearly observe, left alone, things get worse over time, not better.

Now why creation? This is answered quite easily : it is the only other reasonable and logical way of answering this great question- where did we come from? Do i have to take it by faith yes but i know it is true due to many evidence of for example the Noes flood. Millions of fossils are found all around the world and this to me shows that some kind of a huge catastrophe had to occur. There are other things that i believe point to creation and i will be happy to share them with you later on in the debate.

If you have any answers please respond i would like this debate to become a learning experience and i would love for it to increase my knowledge. i am open minded and i am ready to consider other options.
CaptainDaveyJones

Con

I think your misunderstandings stem from a simplistic view of the physical laws you cite. Let me explain.

The Conservation of Angular Momentum applies, as you said, in a frictionless environment. Essentially, things will spin in the same direction unless something else causes them to do otherwise. The Big Bang theoretically occurred as a closed system in what you might call "frictionless space." Venus, however, did not form in such space. The early solar system was wrought with chaotic collisions of matter, i.e. friction. The rotation of Uranus, Venus, etc. are all easily explained by this. The Conservation of Angular Momentum can't apply because we know that they were NOT formed in a frictionless environment.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you stated is missing a crucial piece. Yes, everything tends towards disorder...within a closed system. The system you reference, the evolution of life on Earth, is not a closed system. It includes massive energy input from the Sun. And when I say massive, I mean maaaaassive. To consider the thermodynamic laws on Earth, you must include the Sun. The system that includes the sun is certainly becoming more chaotic, as the Sun itself comes closer and closer to self-destruction every second. Evolution in no way violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but that is a commonly believed myth. Just don't forget the "...in a closed system" part and you should see why the myth isn't true.

I must admit that your reference to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is a more complex, even philosophical, question. Was the matter always here? Did it appear from nothing by some unseen law that we yet to understand? It is a tough question that science does not have the answer for, but neither does religion. Either your god of choice appeared from nothing or was always here. To believe in either, you must accept that something occurred that you don't understand.

The difference between religion and science is that science starts with a question and seeks out an answer. "How did this happen?" Religion starts with the answer and seeks out anything they can to try to prove it. It is why people continue to perpetuate the myth of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics making evolution invalid. A simple Google search would have cleared things up, but it would not have confirmed what the religious already wanted to believe. The religious only accept that which meshes with their views. The scientific are thrilled to learn that there is something out there that they don't understand...yet!

Open your mind. Start with a question! Find an answer! The world is so much more amazing that way.
Debate Round No. 1
ben39

Pro

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the disorder in a system increases, rather than decreases. The Second Law of Thermodynamics gives a precise definition of a property called Entropy.
Entropy can be thought of as a measure of the disorder in a system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Entropy, or disorder, of an isolated system can never decrease. In other words, in our Universe, a state of order progresses to a state of disorder.
For example:
- The Sun and the stars are burning up.
- The Sun is cooling down.
- The Universe is "winding down".
- Ultimately there will be "heat death" of the Universe.
In other words, everything in our Universe tends to disorder. This principle of Entropy is exactly what the Bible teaches in the following Scriptures:
Hebrews 1:10-12, "Lord, in the beginning you made the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of your hands. They will disappear into nothingness, but you will remain forever. They will become worn out like old clothes, and some day you will fold them up and replace them. But you yourself will never change, and your years will never end", TLB.
Psalm 102:25-27, "In ages past you laid the foundations of the Earth and made the Heavens with your hands! They shall perish, but you go on forever. They will grow old like worn-out clothing, and you will change them like a man putting on a new shirt and throwing away the old one! But you yourself never grow old. You are forever, and your years never end", TLB.
In the world that we observe, nothing gets more ordered in design and structure, without an input from an external higher energy source.
Let us look at The Coliseum in Rome. The Coliseum is not getting in a more ordered state by itself, but is in fact becoming less ordered, and will eventually collapse completely. Evolutionist claim that adding energy to a system will increase the order in that system.This claim is not borne out in observations.
- America added a lot of energy, in the form of nuclear bombs, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But America certainly did not increase order in either city.
- The Sun's energy is destructive to everything on Earth except one molecule called Chlorophyll,
- The Sun will eventually burn the roof of our houses and turn the bricks to powder.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the Universe could not order and provide energy for itself.
The order and energy observed in the Universe implies an "Outside Agency", Who the Bible describes as God.
But even ignoring all that and ignoring the laws of thermal dynamics we could easily look at other fact like: The Spontaneous Generation Theory.
The Spontaneous Generation Theory states that all life on planet Earth descended from a common single-cell, arising by chance, in the "primordial ooze", 3.5 billion years ago. This contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, which states that life comes from pre-existing life.

Now let us look at The Moon Is Receding From Planet Earth
Observation demonstrates that the Moon is getting farther from the Earth by two inches every year. This indicates that the Moon used to be closer.
This causes very serious problems to the Evolutionists, because the proximity of the Moon to planet Earth controls the height of the tides.
Because of the law in Physics called the Inverse Square Law, the closer the Moon to the Earth, the higher the tides on the Earth. This law of Physics states that, "The force of attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them". The Inverse Square Law proves that the closer the distance between two objects, the greater the force of attraction will be between them. Thus if the moon is only slightly closer to the Earth, the magnetic forces of attraction are dramatically increased, and the tides become very much higher.
here are some of the Theoretical calculations concerning the height of the tides that i believe back my point up even more
- The Moon is receding from the Earth at the rate of two inches a year.
- The magnetic forces of attraction between the Moon and the Earth become very slightly weaker every year, so that, in general, tides become slightly lower on average.
- 6,000 years ago, when Adam and Eve were created, there were no tides because the Earth had not been covered in water.
- 4,400 years ago, after Noah's Flood, the tides would have been slightly higher, on average, than the tides we see today.
- However, 4 billion years ago, when, according to the Evolutionists Life created itself on Earth, the tides would theoretically been very high indeed. In fact, because of the Inverse Square Law, the whole planet Earth would have been completely covered in water twice a day! This alone would have made Evolution impossible.
I say all of this with respect and i do not intend to offend anyone but i just want to look at the logics and i look forward to hearing your response.

with all the respect
Ben
CaptainDaveyJones

Con

Again, I'm glad that you presented this information here. You have skewed versions of many scientific ideas, and I'm happy to hear that you'd like more information.

"The Sun's energy is destructive to everything on Earth except one molecule called Chlorophyll."

This is not true. Every species on Earth depends on radiation from the sun for survival. Without the sun, we would freeze to death. The sun sustains the level of energy in our cells required for survival. Further, in a more direct sense, melanocytes have been shown to directly convert UV radiation from the sun into metabolic energy. Without the energy input of the sun, life would instantly cease on Earth. It's no surprise how common worship of the sun is throughout history. It gives us the energy we need!

It is a simple fact that things can become more complex by the addition of energy. That is, after all, how the Coliseum was built. It falling apart is also not an example of the system becoming more chaotic because of the addition of energy. "Chaos" does not mean what you think it does. You're thinking in human terms. Take a clock, for instance, with its intricate gears and mechanisms. Complex, no? And that took energy. Now say you added more energy, via a hammer, to smash it. Less complex, right? Wrong. In an anthropocentric view, sure, but not from a thermodynamic standpoint. The clock, as disoriented as it looks to you as a human, is in fact a system of greater complexity. The entire system (that included the clock destroying person) is the system of less complexity.

Unlike the clock, thermodynamics is not complex, but it is commonly misunderstood by the layman who try to apply its rules in ways that don't fit. It's like if you were pulled over by the police and given a ticket for going 55 miles per hour because a road three states over has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. It's all about the road you're on. Some people have no idea what road they're on.

"The Law of Biogenesis"

The Law of Biogenesis is not a "law" in the sense that the laws of physics are. It was proposed in the 1800s and is not held to the same esteem. It was meant only to show that life couldn't come from nothing. No one in the scientific community would say there's a "Law of Biogenesis," though they would referred to biogenesis as a physical process. Just as they'd refer to abiogenesis, which is the scientific word for the creation of life from none living matter. The processes for abiogenesis have been demonstrated in laboratory settings. It IS possible.

"The Moon"
Your theory assumes that the moon as been headed away from the Earth at a constant rate, which is not something that any scientist believes or has suggested. As you state yourself, gravity becomes exponentially more powerful as two bodies move closer to one another. In the early history of the earth and moon, the force of gravity held the two bodies more firmly together. The recession of the moon was less dramatic. In addition to this, a certain "resonance" has been established. This is not the early solar system. There are less outside influences affecting the orbit of the moon, and thus it had been able to proceed on its path unabated. For many reasons, the recession of the moon has increased.

The evidence you've presented assumes processes have always occurred exactly as they are now. The evidence does not support this. You can't ignore inconvenient details. Though it is true that tides were more dramatic billions of years ago, they are not as dramatic as you say. Life on Earth at the time was perfectly adapted to such conditions anyway, as it was almost certainly aquatic.

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

I think what has occurred here is something I've seen many times before. A popular Christian speaker twists a scientific theory until it sounds like it supports theism. I am fully in support of people being religious, but they must accept that what they have is faith. They believe certain things because they've decided a god has allowed for supernatural occurrences, and that could very well be true, but only when you disregard science first. Don't look to science to help you. It doesn't. Just accept that you don't NEED science.

I, personally, like it a lot though.
Debate Round No. 2
ben39

Pro

I have noticed that you said in your response that "without the sun we would freeze to death". And yes this is partly true but that implies a lot of theory and speculation that are not answered in your response. For example when wee look at the rate of the sun's decay we quickly come to a problem of us boiling not freezing.
According to official sources, the Sun is shrinking.
Direct measurements of the diameter of the Sun
_ Since 1836, more than one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, and the U.S. Naval Observatory, have made direct, visual measurements that suggest that the Sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% each century or about five feet per hour.
- It has been calculated that only "11,210,959 years ago the Sun would have been touching the Earth" ( Quoted from :John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boornazian, "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1863-1953," Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, No.2, 1979, p. 437).
- These figures are totally inconsistent with a Universe billions of years old.
Indirect measurements of the diameter of the Sun
Several indirect techniques also confirm that the Sun is shrinking, although these inferred that the Sun's collapse is only about 1/7th as much.
- Using these figures, "the Sun would have been touching the Earth about 158,272,358 years ago"(Quoted from David W. Dunham, "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245).
- The Sun would have absorbed the planets Venus and Mercury.
- The shrinking diameter of the Sun is consistent with a young Universe, and totally inconstant with a Universe billions of years old.
And yet again i know we would have to assume that the rate of decay was always a constant, but even if it would be a little slower eventually you would come to the same results. Looking at the evolution argument you also have to assume millions of things that had to happen at the same time. Even looking at at the evolution of the first life form. there are millions of things that would have to happen at the same time for the first life form to survive like: it would have to be asexual to survive and reproduce, it would have to find something to eat and so on.
Your example of the clock and the hammer contradicts itself. In it you just gave a perfect example of how adding energy destroys rather then makes something new. even if the system is more complex from a thermodynamic standpoint. The clock has been destroyed and you have not created anything new by adding the energy. In actual fact you have made it worse then it was before and this was my point all along. Did you create something better, something with more use something that will be copied by others? The answer is No. Therefore you can not argue that adding energy creates order and helps something (whether it is a living or non-living) survive. You also mentioned UV radiation even if it is true that melanocytes have been shown to directly convert UV radiation from the sun into metabolic energy, you are also aware that if our atmosphere wouldn't exist we all would die UV radiation would kill us and it still does if you are exposed to the sun for long enough. therefore how you can argue that the UV radiation from the sun is at all beneficial to us humans does just blows my mind.
Let me address quickly other point you have made like "The Law of Biogenesis is not a "law" in the sense that the laws of physics are. It was proposed in the 1800s and is not held to the same esteem." In a way you are right when you say that this law is not a physics law but it still was a law created by some of the greatest scientists of the ages, and it is not true that it has been disproved. You said "The processes for abiogenesis have been demonstrated in laboratory settings" if you are referring to the the Miller experiment in 1950s he was a far cry away from producing life all he produced was barely few amino acids.and amino acids are like letters of alphabet. Its like you would drop 100 toothpick and produce coupleof letter from how they arranged themselves(e.g A,R). How long would it take you droping the toothpick for you to create a world? and how long will you have to drop them to get a sentence?? and finely how long will you have to drop them to create an oxford dictionery? The more complex the task is the smaller the persantage of you creating it. It works in an exacly the same way when we are talking about them producing amino acids, all they produced is a couple of letters far cry from the oxford dictionery...
No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

As for the moon again I know that I assume that the rate is the same as it use to be, but so do evolution assume many things and it is still called a reasonble theory.
CaptainDaveyJones

Con

"According to official sources, the Sun is shrinking."

False.

Those sources assumed that the solar diameter was dependent on its luminosity. They thought that a brighter sun was bigger. So when the sun seemed to be brighter in 1863 than in 1953, it was initially believed that the sun had shrunk. We have since shown that the luminosity of the sun fluctuates greatly. It has been brighter and dimmer than either of those time periods since. The luminosity has no direct bearing on the diameter. Those studies are outdated and verifiably false.

There is also the issue with solar eclipses that have been recorded throughout the past few hundred years. If the sun were as much larger as you're suggesting, then the moon would never have been able to totally obscure the sun, but it did do that.

The MASS of the sun is decreasing, yes, but the diameter has not been changed to any measurable degree.

"...therefore how you can argue that the UV radiation from the sun is at all beneficial to us humans does just blows my mind."

UV radiation also directly causes the conversion of cholesterol into Vitamin D within out skin. Sunlight also inhibits the production of melatonin during daylight hours to promote a sleep-wake cycle. I could go on and on. The sun IS good for us. Just because the sun would be too intense if the atmosphere were removed doesn't mean that it is bad.

Think of it like this: Oranges are good for you, right? So if you ate one, you'd be healthier. What if you ate two? What if you ate ten? What if you ate 100? Eventually, your stomach would explode. So, are oranges actually bad for you? No, they are not. In the same way, the sun (including its UV radiation) are essential to human life. Without the sun, we would die. Without its UV radiation, we would be plagued by diseases, and a lot of research has shown that that's the case in latitudes further away from the equator and in cases where individuals avoid the sun completely.

"How long would it take you droping the toothpick for you to create a world?"

As for abiogenesis, yes, it has been performed. Its been proved possible. How long would it take to create a world while dropping toothpicks? Billions of years should do it. Aren't you the one that suggested it took a day?

"No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation."

This is false. Early "eyes" were simple, photoreceptor cells. They could detect light, possibly the direction of light, and little more. They developed from photosensitive proteins. With the addition of molecules that could distinguish wavelengths, an idea of color could develop, in a basic sense of course. More so, it was for day-night stuff. Binocular vision, having two of these things, added depth perception. Basically, an eye evolved because, yes, every little piece of an eye was at one time or another useful, independent of the other pieces. As complexity grew, they evolved in ways that made each piece dependent on the others, and structures to facilitate this came about.

As for the idea that systems are useless without one another, tell that to the Cladonema. He's a jellyfish with complex eyes...and no brain. Having no brain, I'm sure you've seen him at your Creationist conventions...sorry, I couldn't resist that.

The same is said of each of those structures you mentioned. Why did those survive and co-evolve? It wasn't that nature just amazingly defied all odds and got it right on the first try. Those structures evolved beside COUNTLESS others which were selected out. It didn't try once and get it right once. It tried billions and billions and billions and billions of times and got it right once.

In closing, Creationism has only a philosophical basis. It is fine to believe, if you want, but it is not at all a scientific theory. It is unsupportable. It starts with a premise (that a god created the Universe) and seeks out proof to validate that claim, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Evolution is a constantly refined scientific theory based on observation. It started with a question. "How did this happen?" And its the absolute best answer we have so far, based on what we can see.

Thank you for this debate. I was not aware that Creationists thought some of the things they do. I appreciate expanding my knowledge of how the other side thinks and operates.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JackBlack 2 years ago
JackBlack
Hey ben39, out of curiousity are you copying "your" arguments from other sites, such as http://www.changinglivesonline.org... or http://sepetjian.wordpress.com... ?

It has some things that look very similar.

e.g;
Conservation of Angular Momentum which states, that when a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction as the original object. That"s easy to understand since the outside is moving faster than the inside. Therefore, if the Big Bang occurred as the Evolutionists would have us believe, how come Uranus, Venus and possibly Pluto are spinning backwards?
How come 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards?
Why are there entire galaxies spinning backwards?
vs
"Conservation of Angular Momentum which states, that when a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction as the original object. That"s easy to understand since the outside is moving faster than the inside.
Therefore, if the Big Bang occurred as the Evolutionists would have us believe, how come Uranus, Venus and possibly Pluto are spinning backwards?
How come 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards?
Why are there entire galaxies spinning backwards?"

And there are more, I just can't post them.

It would be understandable to use them as sources, but to copy word-for-word?
Posted by CaptainDaveyJones 2 years ago
CaptainDaveyJones
I appreciate some of the feedback in the voting section. I am relatively new here, just stumbling upon this website recently. I know I didn't cite many sources, and I know I didn't make much of an argument for my side, but I have an excuse!

This debate turned out to be far more extensive than "creationism vs. evolution." My opponent was pretty...reaching, you could say. I had to spend so much time explaining why the moon wouldn't have touched the Earth in recent history and how the sun is NOT shrinking that I didn't have time to spend expanding on the rationale for evolution, which seemed not to be the primary debate anyway.

Next time, I will find some sources and focus on the topics at hand. Again, thank you for your criticisms.
Posted by JackBlack 2 years ago
JackBlack
Just a little tip, example calculations actually have calculations, with numbers, which if you take the actual number of 2cm per year (actually 22mm), it gives you a change in distance of 88Mm, which is around twice as large as the distance between perigee and apogee.
This would move the Moon from an average distance of 385 000km to a distance of around 300 000. This means the gravitational force would be around 15/9 times as strong, or 1.6 times. Nothing like the massive ones you suggest. And that is using the very simplistic assumptions you made. Assuming tide hight is directly proportional to gravity strength that gives tides that are a few m, nothing too drastic.
10000 years ago you would have a much smaller change, barely noticeable.

When something is that far away, i.e around 385 000 km, a small change does basically nothing. That is the thing about the inverse square law, the further you are, the more dramatic the change needs to be. And with small tides it really needs to be a big change.
Posted by TryingAtLogic 2 years ago
TryingAtLogic
@ben39

You seen to have a grievous misconception of what the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are.

Indeed, the former states: the gradual change over time by a species through a method of natural selection and genetic mutation in an effort to adapt to the environment.

The latter, however, states: the theory that the Universe came into existence through a mannerism quite like a large explosion, and that everything that consequently exists was created at such a point.

(Forgive me if my definition of the Big Bang is a bit rusty; I have always been more adept in biology than physics.)

Thus, neither is inherently dependent on the other; indeed, the former may exist without the latter and the latter may exist without the former. For example--if String Theory is correct--it is possible the Big Bang in fact did not occur (in the sense we know it as), yet therein, evolution is still very real, and indeed very plausible.

Moreover, it is entirely possible to hypothesize an environment in which the Big Bang did happen but some random event disenabled the creation of life; this action, clearly, would jeopardize the theory of evolution in such an environment.

It should almost go without saying that biological theory and physical theory are almost never inherently dependent on each other; one does not disprove cell theory by destroying the laws of thermodynamics (if one could do such, and I very much doubt they could).
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Cygnus
Ben, how old do you think the earth is?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
ben39 - ...They're two completely exclusive events. There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang led to evolution of species on Earth, a planet that took billions of years to form after that particular event. The idea that a species evolving is in some way dependent on the way the universe started is something unique to creationism.

I do have a problem with the others, but most of them appear to be unimportant to the debate you've set up, excepting 4-6. Yes, many of these include the word "evolution," but to say that they all exist under the same theory goes beyond my understanding. We could have a debate on any one of them and spend 10,000 words a post and still barely scratch the surface of that single theory. The idea that you want to expand it to every single type of evolution, from the cosmic to the micro-level, is just mind-boggling.

CaptainDaveyJones - Yeah, I think I didn't address that piece very well, though admittedly I didn't have much time to think about it before I posted here. Your response was stronger.
Posted by CaptainDaveyJones 2 years ago
CaptainDaveyJones
Whiteflame, thanks for your comment! Ben39 seems genuinely interested in learning more about these topics, so it's great that others would like to help.

However, I have to point out that the Laws of Thermodynamics DO apply to biological processes. You are right that they apply to energy, but from a physics standpoint, matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. There is no process within our Universe for which the Laws of Thermodynamics don't apply.

Thanks for pointing out that the Big Bang and evolution can be true or false independently of one another. I forgot to mention that.
Posted by ben39 2 years ago
ben39
Whiteflame without Big Bang nothing would evolve. and i will come to evidence for creation later on when i will get a response from CaptainDaveyJones. The question that i would ask you is how can evolution begin without Big Bang, and what do you believe evolution means is it "change in species over time" is that all that you consider as Evolution. Because in reality there are 6 types of evolution :
1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.
First 5 are not provable and unscientific the last one is just simple variation and should not be considered as a part of evolution. If you believe only in the last then perfect we agree. and let us finish the debate and get the other 5 out of textbooks. But if you believe in any of the others then now we have a problem and the debate should continue.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
...You know that the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are two separate theories, right? And that one is not contingent on the other being true? Even if the Big Bang theory isn't true (which you're really not doing much to prove), then evolution could still exist. Life forms could still evolve, even if the universe came into existence in some other way. Even if you could somehow prove that intelligent design was true for the universe (and I would seriously like to see more than "no other reasonable theory exists" and "there may have been a very large flood at some point"), that doesn't inherently disprove evolution, since it would only prove that the initial design resulted from an all-knowing, all-powerful deity. And using the second law of thermodynamics, which applies to energy, to disprove evolution, which is biological, is just silly.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
ben39CaptainDaveyJonesTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Generally, it boils down to this. Pro, by spending all of your time here arguing why evolution is incorrect, you are putting absolutely no offense into this debate. All you're doing is mitigating your opponent's argument. That's not good enough when you've given yourself the additional burden of defending creationism. I don't see you doing enough of that, and since you're arguing evolution on a scientific basis, creationism must be similarly evaluated. Con provides good argumentation here, and you don't respond. So now all I have to do is find one hole in your argument that evolution isn't solid. And I find several. Con does a good job of responding to your cosmic evolution argumentation. The abiogenesis responses could have been better - RNA world theory would have been enough to debunk most of Pro's points - but still revealed flaws. The arguments about animal evolution had points for both sides, but Con didn't need to win them all. Con also wins conduct, due to plagiarism.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 2 years ago
Cygnus
ben39CaptainDaveyJonesTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Con wins simply on the grounds that Pro fails to demonstrate any scientific knowledge. Also, the creationist talking points he brings up have been refuted ad nauseam. However, sources is a tie and it shouldn't be. There is an absolute ocean of scientific data at Con's disposal, but he cited none of it. That said, Pro resorted to copying and pasting from Christian websites without mentioning them in a bibliography. Because of that, he loses on conduct. For instance, the first few paragraphs he posted in Round 2 are completely copied and pasted from this website: http://www.freechristianteaching.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?com_mode=flat&com_order=0&itemid=68#axzz2rGLDXG8u Even if Pro did cite this source, it doesn't matter because as I said, these arguments are dead. If you go to college and plagiarize like this you'll certainly fail. You're smarter than this. Use your own words and do your own research. Overall, while Con wins, I must say this debate was disappoi
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
ben39CaptainDaveyJonesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a wonderful job of defending the position of evolution while managing to point out a few good jabs at creationism. Pro only attacked his opponent's position (all of which Con dealt with) but provided no significant defense or argument for his own position.