The Instigator
chris_1993
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

evolution not creationism

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...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 75806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

chris_1993

Pro

There is scientific evidence to prove the theory of evolution, the world must be older than scripted in the old/ new testament Quran ect. How would someone of a religious perspective explain dinosaur bones or our close biological closeness to other mammals?
Lee001

Con

Than you Pro for starting this debate. Since you didn't state any rules, I will use this round as acceptance only, and await your argument in the next round.

Since you didn't bestow any arguments, I should do so my self.

[1] Evolution- one of a set of prescribed movements

[2] Creationism- the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Goodluck!

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
chris_1993

Pro

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

Five Proofs of Evolution

In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution.
by Richard Peacock
Lee001

Con

Thank you for your response. Since I only have 30 minutes to write this, I'll try my best to get everything in.

The main problem I have with your claim is "where is the proof?" You have not given any valid proof that supports your claim, it was just written by a man.

Heck, I could write a book and say we all came from dolphins. Doesn't mean I'm correct unless there was actually proof.

So, instead of arguing my own point, I'll cite some paragraphs and sources that prove evolution is correct.

[1]
COAL & OIL (Section 2 of 27)

The existence of fossil fuels defies evolutionary theory, a primary evidence that there was a Great Flood

Have you ever sat around a campfire in the woods? In the Western US many forests are at least one or two thousand years old, some are much older. Individual trees die and begin to decay but the forest lives on. After putting out the campfire did you have to worry about the soil below catching on fire? If not, then where did all of the world"s coal and oil come from? Decaying vegetation adds minerals to topsoil. When you dig down a couple feet (about half a meter) you"ll see part way down a marked change. The topsoil, that nearest the surface, the live soil actively transforms death into renewed life supporting material.

Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?" They have no logical answer. Yet oil and coal power our modern world. Buried at all sedimentary depths - they exist indeed.

When a drilling rig first strikes oil it often gushes up, still under intense pressure from deep below. Entire forests and jungles of life were crushed directly from life into preserved complex carbon energy. We refine it a little to extract fuel, fertilizer, and plastics, then move on to the next deposit without giving it much thought. Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock. Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket. A million years is a long time. Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years? Please consider the fossil record itself (as it really, actually exists) when pondering our ancient origins.

Modern evolutionary theory simply cannot explain why all this coal and oil is down there, sometimes at 10,000 feet or more. Folks, that depth is 2 miles (about 3km) straight down. 2 miles thick of various layers of sediment on top of a concentrated layer of crushed, preserved plant-derived carbon, and often with occasional volcanic layers interspersed in between.

Peat forms in swamps containing low oxygen or almost antiseptic conditions. The partially decomposed material builds up below and hosts the penetrating roots of successive plant life above. In the theory of evolution as believed today, peat buildup and then slow burial afterwards allows for the subsequent time and pressure to slowly make coal. Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration. But coal, when scientifically incinerated to determine its BTU rating or when looked at under a microscope - isn"t and doesn"t, i.e. peat and coal are not 2 different stages of the same process. Again ... please consider the real fossil record (not artist's conceptions) when pondering our ancient history.

-The challenge of interpreting the jumbled layers of sedimentary and volcanic rock

If it happened, the Great Flood (as still remembered in over 250 legends all over the world!) of approximately 4,400 years ago, must have been devastating! Tidal waves roared across the continents. Earth"s thin planetary crust hemorrhaged below; volcanoes spewed magma and ash (as seen today interspersed between various layers of debris and pressurized muck); remaining sentient life scurried to higher ground; rain for 40 days straight; (followed by 110 more days of rising waters) tidal waves rushed in depositing layers of sea shells even deep inland. Our entire planetary eco-system was left forever altered.

While the evolutionist postulates that each subsequent layer down indicates a different age or episode recorded in that region and then believes millions of years of this or that, the creationist postulates that these same sedimentary layers altogether record a singular recent violent catastrophic flood. According to the Bible the Flood lasted about one year. The creationist believes that, by whatever mechanism, God judged and destroyed the old world. All these sedimentary layers are indicative of how easily continent covering strata gets sorted and redistributed when suspended in moving water. It's like panning for gold; add some water and sand, shake for a few seconds and each material soon sorts itself out. Violent waves, turbulence, and a powerful wind ... stirring, mixing, and resorting the muck and rocks and organic matter.

Take your shoes off and walk in a stream. You see a sand bar; in another area the bottom has all pebbles; and look at all of the sticks collected and jammed together at a particular narrow or shallow place.

The layers of sediment we see on the continents often stretch laterally for a hundred or a thousand square miles or more in every direction. Think about this; rivers today don"t lay down each layer of sediment across a wide valley. No lakes show even distribution on the bottom, the larger the lake the stronger its internal currents. Evenly laid down geological layers spanning a hundred or more lateral square miles each? Who has more to be afraid of by closely examining the fossil record - the creationist or is it the evolutionist?

The question before you is this: does the fossil record we see today show millions of years this, billions of years that, with almost everything getting buried slowly - or does the fossil record show us evidence of a barely remembered ancient tale of massive global destruction? The old world was destroyed due to sin, according to Genesis. After a horrible re-birth, life on Earth began anew. Did this happen about 4,400 years ago (as per Biblical chronology)?; or are we advanced primates with a long illiterate history of swinging from trees, scratching and picking lice off of each other, and then for whatever reason(?) inexplicably growing and developing into civilization, beginning slightly over 4,000 years ago? Hmmm, that timing works out pretty closely, doesn"t it? A Flood about 4,400 years ago; then new civilizations arising around 4,000 years ago.

-LOGIC & THE EVOLUTION OF IDEAS (Section 5 of 27)

Evolution is a valid developmental process. Products improve because they get developed further. Old cars used to have hand cranks to start their engines. Now we just sit down and turn a key for a few seconds. The cars did not improve themselves of course, but we can see that they have evolved.

Ideas evolve. The contents of this web page are evolving. Entire societies evolve too.

The first version of a new movie script is subjected to massive rewriting. The ideas and scenes get improved; they develop (or evolve) because intelligence and effort acts upon the words to improve them. But even then there sure are a lot more mediocre movies which come out each year than the few which become hits. In any event, the paragraphs do not improve if randomly retyped. No, a quality script is the mark of quality time and effort invested in its creation. There is no other logical explanation.

All sources from the same source: [1] http://www.creationism.org...
Debate Round No. 2
chris_1993

Pro

chris_1993 forfeited this round.
Lee001

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
chris_1993Lee001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, all args of Con dropped, and only a half-written contention in favour makes this an impossible win for Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
chris_1993Lee001Tied
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: Forfeiture and Pro failed to uphold to BOP. Con had sources.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
chris_1993Lee001Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as Pro forfeited the final round, which is generally considered unacceptable conduct in all debate settings. Con then graciously extended her arguments. Sources to Con as Pro's sole argument was plagiarized. Thus, conduct and sources to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Rosenley 1 year ago
Rosenley
chris_1993Lee001Tied
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: Forfeit from pro.
Vote Placed by CentristX 1 year ago
CentristX
chris_1993Lee001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Mostly FF, but Con gave more convincing and detailed arguments, while the Pro only gave a single "proof" of evolution before forfeiting. Con also used reliable sources.
Vote Placed by kingkd 1 year ago
kingkd
chris_1993Lee001Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more reliable sources, as Con proved that Pro source was just a book written by anybody while Con had lots of stats. Conduct is Con as Pro Forfeit. By use of more and better evidence Con wins