The Instigator
creationismisright
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
nonprophet
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

creationism verses 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 2 votes the winner is...
nonprophet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 663 times Debate No: 54393
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

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?
nonprophet

Con

The direction of a spinning planet has nothing to do with evolution.

But, if you still want to know:
http://www.scientificamerican.com...;


Neither does the second law of thermodynamics
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;


Evolution is about biological change. Anything about space is astrophysics.

Maybe my opponent will actually address evolution in the next round. We'll see.
Debate Round No. 1
creationismisright

Pro

sorry i did mean the law of angular motion and if the big bang is true then that is a serious question
nonprophet

Con

The debate is "creationism verses evolution"

The Big Bang has nothing to do with this debate at all

Evolution is a fact
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.notjustatheory.com...


Creationism is a hypothesis that states a higher power created life from a pile of dirt and sand.
It's not proved and there is no evidence to prove it.

Debate Round No. 2
creationismisright

Pro

there is plenty of evidence to prove it you are just stalling. why don't you actually say something that helps evolution! according to YOU we came from primordial soup!
nonprophet

Con

Evolution is a fact. Over 98% of scientists in the field agree. Anyone can go to the Museum of Natural History and witness the evidence for themselves. I already provided links to Wikipedia and other reliable sources that prove evolution is a fact.

My opponent still talks about the origin of life "from primordial soup". That is not what evolution is. That is abiogenesis, which we are not debating about.

My opponent failed to prove creationism and instead talked about spinning planets and abiogenesis.

It's a shame this debate was wasted on topics not for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
I agree that he didn't provide sources. His arguement was poorly formed and I did give you the vote for the better arguement despite disagreeing. Secondly, you can't prove creationism. It takes faith and I've already done an unofficial debate on this and I really don't want to go through that again.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
The only thing my opponent said about creationism was "there is plenty of evidence to prove it".
He didn't mention one piece of evidence at all.

Then he says, "my opponent would not address creationism as false with ANY evidence"
You don't prove a negative.

Then he goes on with "my opponent refused to do anything at all in this debate"
Right, all I did was prove evolution true, educate you on why planets spin, explain twice that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, and beg you for evidence that creationism is true.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei were not Christian scientists. They were scientists that happen to be Christians.
Posted by creationismisright 2 years ago
creationismisright
i know and my opponent would not address creationism as false with ANY evidence. another thing is that look at all the christian scientists who changed the world. sir Isaac Newton Galileo Galilei and my opponent refused to do anything at all in this debate
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
"well if the big bang is true why do we have planets spinning backwards?"

wtf. What does that have to do with evolution? Why people still have this misconception?
I mean, I saw people repeating the same thing several times. It drives me crazy.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
I already debated you about this nonprophet =/. Oh well, we'll see what happens in this debate. Hopefully he does a good job at citing similar cases as I did.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by n7 2 years ago
n7
creationismisrightnonprophetTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Tied. Although Pro said "according to YOU we came from primordial soup!" I don't think this was meant to insult Con. Just slander evolution. S&G: Con. Pro had many capitalization and punctuation errors. Arguments: Con. Con was on topic, but he never really presented a full argument. He mostly cited relevant websites. However, he did have some arguments in there attacking the relevance of Pro's arguments. Which went unaddressed Sources: Con. Pro had none where he should have had some, whereas Con had well known reliable website like scientificamerican, wikipedia, and talkorigins.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
creationismisrightnonprophetTied
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: "according to YOU we came from primordial soup!" One example of poor conduct by Pro (Conduct Con). Pro did not use much punctuation in his arguments, I don't ask for perfect, but there still should be some (Spelling and grammar Con). Con made arguments supported with links, Pro did not make any supported arguments or even use sources (Arguments and Sources Con).