The Instigator
guitargod
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

evolution is dead, god is alive!

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,909 times Debate No: 10476
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (9)

 

guitargod

Pro

evolution is illogical, the very idea of it defies multiple laws of physics. so since evolution is a dead theory, the only way we could of been created is by an omniscient god or esentualy some higher power
contentions-
C1- evolution conflicts with 2nd law of thermal dynamics
the second law of thermal dynamics states that as every system is created, its level of entropy is increased. or in Latin terms, any process created is going to have an increased amount of disorder from the process it derived from, saying that you can not get a more complicated process out of a less complicated one, witch is directly contradicting to evolution witch says that we evolved from dust into a single cell and eventually evolved into what we are today, saying that things get more complicated over time, because im pretty sure that we are more complicated as humans than single celled amibas. so this disproves evolution because the natural process of nature is de-evolution.
C2- laws of variation with in species debunks evolution
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
C3- the Cambrian explosion
Cambrian explosion" refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously. so basically every species that ever existed was found in this time period and before this period, this debunks evolution because all these species co-existed in the same time period, but if evolution existed they would not be found in the same time period
C4- The "Tree of Life" is falling
New discoveries are bringing down the whole notion of a "tree of life", as passages from an article in the mainstream magazine New Scientist show:20 "The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened." "For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. 'For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,' says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach.", "But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,' says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change." "The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes". "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances". " 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine." "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.12 'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."
C5- The Ontological Argument that god exists
The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher Ren´┐Ż Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God's non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.
C6- The First Cause Argument that god exists
The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called "the cosmological argument". The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.
C7- The Moral Argument that god exists
The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws. Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can't exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally? To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority. The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.

so basically, Evolution is dead, God is Alive!
RoyLatham

Con

C1 - Contrary to Pro's assertion, the Second Law of thermodynamics does not require that "every system is created, its level of entropy is increased." If Pro's assertion were true it would be impossible to build a car or bake a cake, because the products of those efforts are more ordered than their starting ingredients. The second Law of thermodynamics is correctly stated at http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, ...."

Note the reference to an "isolated system." The earth is not an isolated system. It receives energy from the Sun. Therefore order can and does increase on the earth, as happened during the process of evolution.

C2. Pro asserts "the imaginary part of ... evolution ... says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection" Pro's assertion is unsupported and untrue. Mutations occur naturally when the genetic material fails to copy correctly, and also externally by cosmic rays, chemical agents, and other such occurrences. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Mutations that are harmful tend to be eliminated by natural selection, while those that are beneficial to the species survive.

A counterexample to Pro's contention is the origin of blue eyes. Originally, everyone had brown eyes, then a genetic mutation occurred about 10,000 years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Being harmless, the eye color mutation has not been removed by natural selection, at least not in 10,000 years. Contrary to Pro's assertion that there must have been, there was no genetic material for blue eyes inherent in humans.

C3. Animals are only one of six kingdoms of living things http://www.ric.edu... Phyla are major groups of animal species. consequently, Pro has not addressed all of evolution, only animal evolution at a level well above species.

I agree there was an evolutionary "explosion" of animals in the Cambrian period. It's not particularly problematic that no new phyla have since evolved, because phyla are superficial classifications of animals. Any new animal found is assigned to a some existing phylum based upon its superficial characteristics:

"A phylum is not a fundamental division of nature, such as the difference between electrons and protons. It is simply a very high-level grouping in a classification system created to describe all currently living organisms. This system is imperfect, even for modern animals: different books quote different numbers of phyla, mainly because they disagree about the classification of a huge number of worm-like species. As it is based on living organisms, it accommodates extinct organisms poorly, if at all." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nonetheless, during the Cambrian explosion species appeared to evolve at something like ten times the rate of other periods. This is not well explained, because the fossil record from 565 million years ago is sketchy. Suggested factors include (a) dramatically increased oxygen content of the atmosphere, (b) climate conditions of substantial warming, and (c) evolution of "tipping point" structures, notably vision. It also may be that many of the forms evident in Cambrian fossils had previously existed, but were not preserved or discovered.

That evolution occurred faster during that period is scarcely evidence that evolution did not occur at all. The claim is a non sequitur.

C5. The "tree of life" concept is largely independent of evolution. Evolutionary theory depends upon (a) genetic mutations occurring and (b) natural selection preferring mutations more suitable to the environment. Moreover, the properties of unusual microorganisms cannot be generalized to other species.

"Only within the last couple of decades, archaea were recognized as a distinct domain of life. They are extremophiles, meaning they thrive in physically or geochemically extreme conditions. They have similar ecological roles as bacteria. Both of these organisms react to various antibiotics in a different way." http://www.differencebetween.net...

Note that archea and bacteria are two of the kingdoms of living things outside of plants and animals. Their apparent ability to swap genetic material is unique, and it directly contradicts Pro's C2. If genetic material is swapped among microorganisms, then either the organism that results is better adapted to it's environment or not. Evolution thus persists, with this source of mutation. This undoubtedly makes it more difficult to trace evolution in these species, but it does not question the evolutionary process.

C5. St. Anselm's ontological argument has long been disproved. The fault is that conceiving of something as real does not make it anymore real than was before you conceived it that way. Ontological arguments may be thus applied to make anything exist with equal validity:

"Following Anselm, we might say that, since you understand the expression "smallest really existent Martian", there is, in your understanding, at least one smallest really existent Martian. (Or, apparently following Descartes, one might say that real existence is "part of" — or "contained in" — the idea of a smallest really existent Martian.) However, in saying this, it must be understood that we are not actually predicating properties of anything: we aren't supposing that there is something which possesses the properties of being a Martian, really existing, and being no larger than any other Martian. (After all, we can safely suppose, we don't think that any Martians really exist.) In other words, we must be able to have the concept of, or entertain the idea of, a smallest really existing Martian without believing that there really are any smallest Martians. Indeed, more strongly, we must be able to entertain the concept of a smallest really existent Martian — and to recognise that the property of "really existing" is part of this concept — while nonetheless maintaining that there are no smallest existent Martians." http://plato.stanford.edu...

C6. (a) There is no certainty that the universe came into existence at one point. Few scientists speculate on what existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a multidimensional universe existed before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang was the result of the collision of "membranes" in other dimensions.

(b) If everything has a first cause, then God must have been caused. However, if an exception is allowed for God, than it is simpler to allow the exception for the universe without the agency of God.

C7. It is not true that moral commands require a commander. Praying mantis always eat their mates; it supposedly preserves the species by recycling protein. So are we to suppose that this is a commandment from God? No, it is a product of evolution. Humans are complex creatures, with instincts not only to serve themselves, but their families and societies. That is a product of evolution, and as such transcendental. However, conflicts among instincts and errors in understand lead to many odd behaviors, like human sacrifice, being deemed moral. Clearly there is no commander in command.

N1. Pro is attempting to nitpick the details of evolution. However, nothing in his complaints leaves Pro's God as the only alternative. Scientific theories are replaced with new science, not gods. Einstein proved that Newton's Laws were inadequate to explain the workings of the universe. The consequence was not belief in mystical gods, but rather better scientific theory.
Debate Round No. 1
guitargod

Pro

C1- my oponent has a very rudimentary understanding of entropy and the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. he said "Contrary to Pro's assertion, the Second Law of thermodynamics does not require that "every system is created, its level of entropy is increased." If Pro's assertion were true it would be impossible to build a car or bake a cake, because the products of those are more ordered than their starting ingredients." but this is not an assertion and would not prevent the building of a car or baking of a cake. see as the engreediants are not as complex, they are not the ones creating, we are. and a car is by far less complicated than we are. see, say in a given sysem there is 100 units of energy, now it goes through a cycle and is changed into a new proces (whenthis happens a level of energy is allways lost, and alltho not allways the same, it usulay is around 9-10% of the origonal amount of energy) and in this proses 10 units have been given off in head, creating less energy, forcing the system to get less complicated after every cycle as it loses 10% of its energy every time. in the instance of a car, we desighn and create, becoming part of the process. but alone you are corect, the matirials alone would never form a car on there own. now my oponent also argued that this law is only aplicable to an isolated system and the earth is not an isolated system, therefore making my argument seemngly void, and my oponent would be corect in that the earth alone is not an isolated system. however, the universe as a whole is, therefore making the 2nd law of thermal dynamics aplicable to everything within it.
C2-my oponent said "Originally, everyone had brown eyes, then a genetic mutation occurred about 10,000 years ago....the eye color mutation has not been removed by natural selection...there was no genetic material for blue eyes" now i would like to ask m opponent the fallowing questions-
1-what is the point of this argument? all that may of happend is a eye collor change, what is the relevence unless it is an example that shows another spiecies being created? all youve shown me is an example of macroevolution.
2-in the same artical you referenced, there existed the fallowing phraze "...That is my best guess...", so it wouldnt seem that this is more of an assertion than an actual prooved fact?
3-how could they possibly know whaat eye collor people had 10,000 years ago? how could they know that blue eys didnt exist 10,000 years ago?
C3-my opponent missunderstandsmy argument with the cambrian explosion, i thing i missworded it a little bit, sorry. my argument is basicaly that no reamains ,or proof of life is found before the cambrian explotion, if evolution where to exist, then there would be life found befor this point.
C4-this doesnt deserve rebuttle, darwenstheory was contingent on 2 things, the tree of life and natural selection, both of wich are false and have been dissproved
C6-my opponents answer to this arguent is laughable, basicaly he is saying: who knows how things came to be and who cares: my opponent is compleatly working around the topic at hand making circle arguments. the reson its more plausible that God was the one without begining is explaind by fallowing-
1.God created time, therefor, for god there is no time, wich meens no such thing as begining or end.
2.there are cirtian facters of the universe that could not be unless a power of much higher complexity in nature created them (such as the very existance of life)
C7-i ask my oponent the allowing question, do you believe murdur is wrong?
Answer to:n1- this argument doesnt prove or disprove anything, its an inconcequential argument. if science is ever evolving, then chances are that in the future that evolution will be replaced with another theory.
additional args-
C8-Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong (evolution is contingent on natural selection)
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
C9-Species Without a Link disproves Evolution
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
C10- Single Cell Complexity disproves Evolution
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.
C11-Single Cell Complexity disproves Evolution
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.
C12-DNA Error Checking disproves Evolution
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
-
-
-
-
Evolution is dead, God is Alive!
RoyLatham

Con

C1. I gave specific reference stating that the Second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. Pro has given no reference as to the derivation of his understanding. I do not understand what he is trying to say in the ensuing text "see, say in a given system there is 100 units of energy" ... "form a car on there own." Possibly he is supposing that having a human agency is an exception to the Second Law. There is no such exception. In the case of a cake baking, the cake is made more ordered solely by the application of the heat of the oven.

Pro continues, "my [opponent] would be [correct] in that the earth alone is not an isolated system. however, the universe as a whole is, therefore making the 2nd law of [thermodynamics] [applicable] to everything" Applying the Second Law to the universe as a whole implies that the total entropy is increasing. However, order can increase in one place as it decreases to a greater degree in another. The sun was losing energy as evolution occurred on the earth, thus the total entropy of the earth-sun system increased while the entropy in life forms decreased.

C2. "what is the point of the argument?" The points that Pro asserted that no genetic trait could arise that was not encoded originally in the genes. The origination of blue eyes is a counter example to Pro's claim. The reference describes how scientists deduced this from genetic evidence. The phrase "It's my best guess" was used with respect to the location and time of the occurrence of the genetic mutation. The fact it occurred was asserted with certainty.

Pro ignored the standard references to mutations occurring by natural errors in genetic replication and by external causes. His assertion that nothing new can arise in genetic material stands refuted.

C3 "my argument is basicaly that no reamains ,or proof of life is found before the cambrian explotion [sic]" The references I cited demonstrate that there was plenty of life before the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian period was 565 million years ago. "The oldest well dated and well preserved microsfossils were described by J.W. Schopf from the Apex Chert at Marble Bar, Western Australia. These are dated at 3.465 Ga. Microfossils from Swaziland (South Africa) have a similar age. The North American Gunflint Chert (2 Ga) is the first occurrence of Precambrian microfossils that has been discovered and published. The Belcher Group microfossils from Canada have a similar age. The Bitter Springs Chert (central Australia; 0.8 Ga) has definitely yielded the richest and best preserved association of Precambrian microfossils. " http://www.uni-muenster.de... the reference gives a lengthy chart of examples more than 2 billion yeas old.

C4. Pro offers denial without rebuttal. The contention stands refuted. Moreover, his C4 contradicts C2.

C5. Pro did not respond. The contention stands refuted.

C6. Pro says, "-my opponents answer to this arguent [sic] is laughable" -- a debate conduct violation. Pro offers no proof of his assertions, but merely reasserts his contention. Pro gave no rebuttal to refutation 6 (a) and (b).

C7. Pro asks, "do you believe murdur is wrong?" Yes, I do. But I did not receive a commandment from a god to that effect. It is a natural instinct for social animals. Pro ignored my argument.

N1. Pro says, "if science is ever evolving, then chances are that in the future that evolution will be replaced with another theory." Pro had argued that if evolution were wrong then it would prove Creationism were true -- see the wording of the resolution. Now he concedes that is not the case, that if evolution were disproved it would likely be replaced by another scientific theory" Well-established scientific theories are generally expanded, per Einstein over Newton, rather than replaced.

C8. Pro asks, "Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?" A winglike structure that is not fully evolved is useful because it facilitates gliding to escape predators. This is evident in species like flying fish and flying squirrels that glide for short distances rather than fly. Wing structures in birds evolved as gliding mechanisms in reptile precursors.

Pro's assertion "The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense." is completely false. Where did that come from?

Pro concedes that natural selection obviously works in many cases. The cases he does not understand are most often explained in the scientific literature. In some cases, a structure that evolved for a completely different purpose is adapted to a new purpose. There are still some unexplained cases, but that does not imply that no explanation is possible, only that they remain unsolved.

C9. (a) Pro claims that evolutionary sequences of fossils are contrived. "This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. ... The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution." The evolution of many species has been traced through the morphology of successive fossils. For example, the evolution of horses are traced over 55 million years. http://chem.tufts.edu...

The evolution of giraffes is given: "Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras Drawing(very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx(also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia(one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe." http://www.nature-wildlife.com...

(b) How do Creationists explain the time sequence of evolving fossils. Did God kill off one species then create the successor, repeating the process many times to the present? That makes no sense. Morphological sequence is determined by unusual details in fossils, not just by general appearance. For example, the characteristic structure of an ankle joint may be used to help trace ancestry.

(c) Moreover, there is independent evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary sequence through analysis of what is commonly (and improperly) called "junk DNA." http://atheism.about.com... The ancestral precursors of whales derived by this DNA methodology is shown at http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... Hence there is verification of evolution independent of the fossil record.

C11. The origins of life is a different subject from evolution. Pro gives no reference to his claims of what scientists think or thought. As to whether scientists can create life in a test tube, there seems to be progress in doing just that http://www.foxnews.com... Scientists were unable to create airplanes before 1900, so in prior years did that prove the task impossible? Clearly it was not proved impossible.

C12. Pro gives no reference to his claim that DNA error checking repairs all errors in DNA replication. contrary to Pro's assertion. "Error correction is a property of some, but not all, DNA polymerases." http://en.wikipedia.org...

N2. Throughout this debate, Pro has failed to provide a single reference for any of his numerous assertions of claimed fact. Since Pro has the burden of proof and he depends heavily on claimed facts, I do not actually need to refute his assertions. I must only point out that they are unproved claims. Pro has failed to provide evidence substantiating a single claim, therefore the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
guitargod

Pro

guitargod forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro posed the debate challenge as four rounds, then defaulted n the third round. All of his contentions stand refuted. He refuses to use the spell-checker or to put spaces after paragraphs. He has provided no references to support any of his assertions, which have been shown false by properly referenced sources.

A few additional notes on some issues:

C1. Pro contends that "evolution conflicts with 2nd law of thermal dynamics." Creationists incorrectly assert that natural processes always increase disorder, except when humans intervene to increase order. This is false on theoretical grounds because entropy can decrease locally while increasing for a larger system as a whole. However, it's useful to point out examples of order or complexity increasing in nature:

a. Crystals grow naturally, producing ordered structures from molten materials or solids dissolved in liquids. The crystals that form sometimes have complex ordered shapes, such as snowflakes. http://www.its.caltech.edu...

See also, "Entropy Alone Can Create Complex Crystals from Simple Shapes; Tetrahedra Packing Record Broken" http://www.sciencedaily.com...

b. Natural sedimentation begins with materials mixed in run off and sorts it into layers according to density. Sedimentation provides an order geological record useful for dating fossils and natural events. http://www.csc.noaa.gov... It wouldn't be possible to se them for dating if materials remained disordered as Pro implies they must.

c. Galaxies begin as dust clouds and naturally become ordered into stars and planetary systems. The processes are observed in various stages because the light from distant objects takes billions of years to reach earth. Experiments in space show that electrostatic forces naturally cause dust particles to clump, then gravity aids the process to form large objects. http://athene.as.arizona.edu...

d. Erosion is another natural mechanism that orders materials by type. The Grand Canyon is an example of a complex structure derived from sandstone and limestone layers by nature. http://chem.tufts.edu...

C2. Pro states "But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures." Pro is asserting that evolution claims new species are created by the "merging" of separate species, which had become specialized to cope with their environments. To my knowledge, no such claim as ever been made. If Pro has an example of such a claim he should cite it.

To the contrary, evolution slows dramatically when a species is well adapted. For example, "Often referred to as a living fossil, the horseshoe crab has changed very little in over 400 million years." http://science.jrank.org...

===================

Pro claimed, "Evolution is dead, God is Alive!" At this point, we know evolution is doing quite well. Presumably God can take care of Himself. The question that remains is: Where is Pro?
Debate Round No. 3
guitargod

Pro

guitargod forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

I don't object to debaters using cut-and-paste to build a case from other work. The deal is that once the arguments are used, the advocate must then own the arguments and defend them. In this debate, my opponent did not defend the arguments he made. He did not even show that he understood them. Each of his points was refuted, and those refutations were unanswered.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The Second Law of Thermo says that in a closed system, entropy always increases, so creationists say that on earth life could not have occurred naturally because that would decrease entropy. Similarly, it would be impossible to build a garage, because that too decreases entropy. The error, of course, is that the earth is not a closed system. The sun provides energy. The entropy increase from the sun radiating into the universe is greater than the entropy decrease from life on earth. No one who has spent a single day in a thermodynamics class would make the argument. any scientist who makes the argument is not a scientist.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
daniel_t noted that the list provided has about 20 x 40 = 800 names. I took a random sample of 85 names and counted 15 that were in the earth or life sciences. Others were in engineering, mathematics, medicine (physicians), computers, physics, and so forth. So that's about (15/85)*800 = 141 relevant scientists. However, the statement they signed doesn't say that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, it only says it "should be looked at skeptically." The list contains scientists outside the U.S., where creationism is much less favored than in the US, so it's drawing on a population probably more than a million earth and life scientists to get 141 or so.

I provided the link to the Wikipedia article on the 99.9% number. The Wiki article in turn links to the sources of the studies.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Second Law? You mean the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If so, what the heck does that have to do with evolution?
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Any 'scientist' who makes the Second Law argument needs to be stripped of his degree and possibly institutionalized.
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
Sorry guitargod, 20 pages at less than 40 people (many of them not scientists -- I mean come on, 50 of them are Mathematicians!) per page does not make "around 30,000 scientists." There are more scientists named Steve that accept evolution than people on your list. (http://ncse.com...)

If there were any known serious problems with the theory of evolution, I'm sure you would happily tell us about them, but there aren't any... Back to the drawing board for you.
Posted by guitargod 6 years ago
guitargod
heres the specific link to the list:
http://www.discovery.org...
Posted by guitargod 6 years ago
guitargod
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
this websight has a list of around 30,000 scientists who would more than gladly back me up.
Posted by guitargod 6 years ago
guitargod
ok, weres the studdy? how did they get this stat? since your oviously no dumb, you probly know how one-sided statistics can be made to apear. how was this statistic aquired? where was the control group taken from? factors matter. also, thae majority of statistics are made up on the spot. FACT.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Actually there are not thousands of scientists who believe in Creationism, at least not earth and life scientists, who might be expected to know something about the subject. "One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science" An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" " http://en.wikipedia.org... When creationists list supporting scientists, they tend to include everyone from podiatrists to computer science types in order to expand the numbers.

However, having nearly unanimous consensus among scientist is not an absolute guarantee of fact. I think it take some extraordinary new evidence of an unexpected kind to upset the theory.

It's not unusual for a two-thirds consensus to be upset. The Steady State Theory once had about a 60% preference over the Big Bang Theory. A few decades ago there was a consensus that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, another mistake. I can't of any example of a 99.9% consensus being overturned. That would be like flat earth theory making a comeback.
Posted by guitargod 6 years ago
guitargod
ill return the question. do you realy think that you know more than the thousands of scientists that would agree with me? (this was directed at i am panda)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wasted Con's time...Guitargod had poor spelling and grammar, did not understand his own arguments (and had poor refutations of Con's strong cases), and lost points for conduct when he ridiculed Roy's arguments.
Vote Placed by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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: See the comments section for my analysis.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by guitargod 7 years ago
guitargod
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by CRL 7 years ago
CRL
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by ErodingEthos 7 years ago
ErodingEthos
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
guitargodRoyLathamTied
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