The Instigator
cheyennebodie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Elijahhill97
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

evolution is noticably weak when it comes to the origin of life.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
Elijahhill97
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,786 times Debate No: 61798
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (6)

 

cheyennebodie

Pro

I have yet heard any one from the anti-creation side give a plausible account of the origin of life. This will be an open debate for all .
Elijahhill97

Con

Since you have not put any rules into the debate I will Jump right into my argument.

Now your opening statement and your title are a little spotty to say the least. Evolution is by definition(the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.)

Evolution and creation can go hand in hand. SInce you believe that anti-creation doesnt have a good "answer"for the beginning I will give you my evidence.

When Did Life Originate.
"Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure "" the stromatolite."

Where Did Life Originate.
"Scientists are exploring several possible locations for the origin of life, including tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent."

So to sum all of this up, Your argument is flawed since evolution is what happens after creation but with that being said evolutionist and other scientist who do not believe in creationism do have theories for the origins of life. If you would like me to provide links to all of these theories I'd be more than happy to provide them for you. I will be looking forward to your agruement.
Debate Round No. 1
cheyennebodie

Pro

Like I said. Weak.If they actually are that close to reproducing what it took to create life, then lets get to it. And you say that the evidence that you have is millions of years old. How did they come up with that number?Is it because of the strata that these fossils are found in. Those sediment layers would just as easily be because of a massive flood of biblical proportions. They are starting out rejecting what the creator said happened. Therefore their reasoning will never even consider that as a possibility.And since all civilizations that recorded any thing mentions a flood.Just that should give them pause to think maybe a flood would explain these different layers of sediment. And maybe these things are not as old as we speculate. Just because a person puts on a white coat and has a scientist label after his name does not guarantee he is right. Especially if he starts out wrong. Even if he is wrong a little bit. The farther down that road he goes, the further he gets from the truth.And the more assumptions he has to come up with to still be credible.

Then you throw this millions and billions of years into the mix to throw any objective evidence so far out of reach that people will not even try.
The only ones who can really solve this is you. We cannot. Because God is done creating anything. After he created all these things, he saw it was good, and put the law of geneses into motion. Everything will reproduce after its own kind.
So, if you are set in solving this question, then you and the other smart people have to do it.You are convinced you have an idea how it happened and what conditions it took to happen.Then lets get to it. You even have place you say it occurred.I am sure that it will not be too long before you finally create the conditions life will spring forth and end this debate once and for all. The world has its eyes on you.
Elijahhill97

Con

I apologize for forgetting to post the link to the website I use here it is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Now I would like to point out that the theories that scientist put out there are backed by some type of evidence now wether this evidence is wrong or not who knows but they still have evidence. Your beliefs on the origins of life are backed by pure faith in your religion. Nothing against your beliefs but it is backed by a book that has no evidence or hard proof besides itself.

In reference to your "Biblical flood" could you name any references to this "Biblical flood" besides your bible? That would be greatly appreciated.

I would like you to comment on the fact that evolution is what happens to life once it has already been created. Do you realize you are attacking something that can go hand in hand with creation? Since your argument is "Evolution is noticeably weak when it comes to the origins of life" I would beg to differ. Now although evolution does not necessarily involve the origins of life scientist and evolutinist still have theories backed by evidence. Since your comment on my evidence was almost completely unsupportive of your side I will post many theories (and evidence) that scientist have came up with about the origins of time.

"Some Warm Little Pond"- Charles Darwin.
"In 1953 two people created Darwin"s warm little pond. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, working at the University of Chicago mixed water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen in a glass bulb and added heat and sparks of electricity; they were trying to recreate the atmosphere that existed during earth's early days to test whether organic molecules such as amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, could have spontaneously formed. They ran the experiment for a week and amazingly, when they analysed their concoction, found over 10 different types of amino acids."

I do not have enough room to keep posting but next round I will continue.
Debate Round No. 2
cheyennebodie

Pro

cheyennebodie forfeited this round.
Elijahhill97

Con

Well I will do a very short conclusion since it will not matter overall. Evolution and creation can go hand in hand. Although I do not believe in creation it still can. Evolution has very little to do with the beginning of life it takes place after life was created. Evolutionist and scientist still place many theories about the origins of life. Just look up Richard Dawkins.

Thank you to all who vote and have watched this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate even though he did not fully participate. Thank you it has been a pleasure.
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@cheyennebodie Didn't you study science in school? Evolution is not just weak when it comes to the origin of life, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Zero. That's a different branch of biology called abiogenesis. You need to do your research before you start a debate.
Posted by WhoWouldnt 2 years ago
WhoWouldnt
You specified that the debate was based on popular opinion rather than merit of argument. It seems your original comment implied (and I inferred) that the winner didn't deserve the win. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I could be wrong about your bias and I'll admit that, but the instigator made a claim and has the burden of proof unless otherwise stated at the beginning of the debate (which it was not). All the contender should have to do is undermine the instigator's argument (which it was because the argument was poorly made and offered little to no Pathos, Ethos, and Logos).

I also see you do not (or did not) understand what I was saying about "modes of persuasion," which is essential for a convincing argument. What convinced you that Pro's argument was better in any way or deserving of more points? And, what made you think that they met their burden of proof?
Posted by Emilirose 2 years ago
Emilirose
Whowouldnt, what bias are you referring to exactly? I have not specified my stance on the title resolution. I'm simply implying that voting should not be based on how inferior one argument is; but on how good the opposing argument is. Con is worthy of winning but not by such a vast amount of points, particularly given some of the grammatical errors and failure to provide and source the evidence that he makes reference to.
Posted by WhoWouldnt 2 years ago
WhoWouldnt
@Emilirose - Really? I don't mean to sound so condescending, but maybe you should take off the blindfold. Cheyennebodie forfeited his last round (which is where most of the votes came from) and didn't adhere to any standard form of debate. Looking at Pro's argument and the modes of persuasion, it is strictly from assertions based on preconceived notions that they are in fact correct because of a book they have read (without establishing its authority) and continually study because they believe it is divine. So NO ETHOS for Pro. Pro's arguments are poorly crafted religious dogma so he scores a few points for people who are already heavily emotionally invested in his side. So it was WEAK PATHOS in convincing any objective observer. And don't even bother getting started with a lack of logic. Con didn't really have a constructed argument, too many assertions without evidence, and no rebuttal to deconstruct any argument from Con. This has NO LOGOS to speak of. Again, Pro also forfeited the final round which is bad debate etiquette and deserving of a loss. I hope you are not reading this with a tone intended to attack or make you feel badly because that was not this comment's intent. I do however hope that in the future you actually read and comprehend what the voters are giving points for and that you try to leave your bias at the door and really judge an argument based on its merit. What in your mind convinced you that it was popularity that won over merit? And, What convinced you that Pro was correct? If you'd like we can make this a short debate in which you take the stance that this debate was won by popular opinion rather than merit.
Posted by Emilirose 2 years ago
Emilirose
Just another example of winning by popular opinion rather than merit of argument.
Posted by AimeeGleek17 2 years ago
AimeeGleek17
You're WEAK!
Posted by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
and yes I am hanging around because I am watching and supporting all of my fellow mates who are defending and supporting evolution and commenting on your ignorant and uneducated thoughts.
Posted by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
That is completely fine and I respect that but I feel disrespected by you for not finishing the debate but continuing to comment on this debate. Any ways it is in the past.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Elijah.... I see you are still hanging around. Winning a debate means nothing to me.I have developed opinions over a long life and I am just expressing them.I have even believed as you do. But I grew out of that.
Posted by Elijahhill97 3 years ago
Elijahhill97
@cheyennebodie I enjoy how now you are very active and willing to discuss but you forfieted our debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
cheyennebodieElijahhill97Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
cheyennebodieElijahhill97Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by benko12345678 3 years ago
benko12345678
cheyennebodieElijahhill97Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not address any of con's contentions and came back with simplistic gibberish. Conduct goes to con for forfeiture and con is the only one who actually used a source (even though it was just one)
Vote Placed by TrustmeImlying 3 years ago
TrustmeImlying
cheyennebodieElijahhill97Tied
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: RFD in comments, but mostly for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
cheyennebodieElijahhill97Tied
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: Pro forfeited, and his arguments were not even coherent.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
cheyennebodieElijahhill97Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF