The Instigator
MadCornishBiker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

is creation the most logical answer?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,822 times Debate No: 36488
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

MadCornishBiker

Pro

Well, here goes.

I firmly believe that creation is the most logical explanation for us being here on this earth, as well as for the establishment of everything that is in existence. I will be interested to hear my opponents argumentation, and hopefully we will use the final round just to sum up the arguments in the prior rounds, as well as just using the first round to state our position.

I hope to show why I believe creation is a logical answer, and ask my opponent to try and prove that it isn't.

I've deliberately set this up for five rounds and 10,000 characters to give us both chance to expand on argumentation.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate, and I take the following side:
Creationism isn't the most logical answer.
I will use this round for acceptance only, as to give us equal opportunity for arguments. I will also be arguing for evolution, though it isn't necessary for the debate.
I also accept the BoP is shared.
Many thanks, good luck!

I await my opponents opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MadCornishBiker

Pro

First may I apologise for taking so long to answer.

My argument is simple.

Evolution tries to teach that we came from a primordial soup of single celled organisms which changed and developed through a whole range of life-forms into what we are today.

When you consider the complexity which some organisms need to maintain in order to exist at all, one wonders where the logic lies in assuming that it all happened by accident.

Not only are so many of the creatures which we see around us, including some which are known not to have changed in millennia. Some are even called "living fossils" because they are still precisely as they were when their ancestors were turning into fossils.

Watch some nature programs, or DVDs and what do you find? So frequently the presenter, scientist or whoever, speaks of design. Who can you have design in something which all happened by accident, by sheer chance? you cannot, for design you need a designer.

Another illogical element to evolutions as an explanation is the way in whihc so much of life on this planet is interdependent.

If it were not for insects, we would have very few plants, if it were not for Ramora, I wonder how well sharks would be able to hunt and eat with the tooth problems they would have, and those are just two simple examples, there are so many more, as ecologists are trying so hard to make us understand.

The interdependence is so great that our causing the extinction of so many species is threatening our own survival, and also affecting the weather patterns adversely.

How can a complete system like that have come about through random development?

Simple it cannot have.

Creation on the other hand tells us where everything came from and why, it gives us not only the origins of everything but the purpose of mankind.

It also shows that the creator had the intelligence to anticipate that the climate and other environmental circumstances, and build into his creation the ability to adapt to their surroundings and food sources.

The biggest example of that being that all of creation, including mankind was originally given fruit and vegetation as food, and yet, when it became necessary, after the flood those who needed to were able to adapt to a carnivorous diet.

Genesis 1:29, 30 "And God went on to say: "Here I have given to YOU all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree on which there is the fruit of a tree bearing seed. To YOU let it serve as food. 30 And to every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul I have given all green vegetation for food." And it came to be so."

The whole bible story simply expands on the marvellously intelligent working of the designer, and his amazing ability to plan, millennia ahead, and then make sure that his plans work out.

I look forward to seeing how my opponent counters the logic of these impressions of creation
MysticEgg

Con

Apology accepted, my friend! Let's debate!

My opponent essentially makes two arguments to support his position:
1) Evolution and life are too complex to have happened by mere chance and
2) Creationism (in the Bible) is logical as it fills in all the gaps that evolution leaves out.

First and foremost, my opponent's first argument does in fact do nothing to support his position. This is because:
Even if evolution was wrong, that wouldn't make Creationism automatically right - there are more options.
Correct version:
If X (evolution) and Y (creationism in the Bible) exist.
And X is wrong.
Then Y is right.
OK, but the reality is:
X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D etc... exist. The lists for arguments for life go on and on, and on! Since we live in a reality where the second is more accurate and true, then even if X was wrong, Y isn't right. Thus, your position of
Creationism is the most logical answer
is not strengthened by flaws in evolution.

Having said that, I will still refute you.
My opponent makes an appeal to ignorance (or at least appears to) in stating the evolution states that life, organisms etc... all came about my chance. The reality is almost opposite, although chance does play a part.
The basic premise of evolution is:
DNA can mutate - random and chance. But...
The process of natural selection decides whether these gene mutations are useful to the organism and thus whether they should be kept. Natural selection is not chance, quite the opposite. With this, my opponent's objections to evolution crumbles, after this appeal to ignorance is revealed. However, I would still disagree with:

"How can a complete system like that have come about through random development?
Simple it cannot have."

even if it were true, because appeal to probability is another logical fallacy. But since this is not how evolution works, it does nothing to de-stabilize evolution.

I agree that Creation tell us X and Y, and Z did A and had the foresight to see B etc... That would be brilliant. But these are just claims and not supported by evidence. (If they are, my opponent has not shown any and the X is wrong therefore Y is right is invalid.) Not logical.

Now onto my contentions!

Contention 1:The distribution of fossils supports the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution predicts that as we move up the higher levels of strata, we should see more complex life forms fossilized, because animals will have evolved more over longer periods of time. However, the Argument for Creationism (should) predict that fossil distribution is random as bunnies were made with cyanobacteria which were made with mammoths which were made with homosapiens etc... OK, fair enough. But which does the evidence support?
The Theory of Evolution.
The fossil record shows the distribution as predicted by the theory of evolution. You never find mammoths with humans! I conclude that this fact (of the distribution) supports evolution.

Contention 2: Transitional forms support evolution.
The Theory of Evolution predicts that because of random mutation and natural selection, we will see animals in transition from one form to another. We should see these in fossils. However, the argument for Creationism states that we shouldn't see any at all, because all animals were made how they are now. What do we see?
Transitional forms, supporting evolution.
"From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians." As an example. As I understand it, my opponent doesn't believe that we were all made in our current form (or kind, as my opponent calls it, though "kind" isn't used in science) - so I am not using this against him. Instead, I am posting as a reference and to point this out to any other Creationists who disagree with my opponent.
Contention 2 should not affect voting as it is not disproving Creationism as the definition agreed upon by myself and my opponent. Thank you.

These conclude my refutes and arguments. Thank you, I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
MadCornishBiker

Pro

MadCornishBiker forfeited this round.
MysticEgg

Con

It is a great shame that my opponent has forfeited this round. However, it might have been for a very good reason. But, seeing as nothing has been posted; I'll extend all of my arguments and refutes.
Debate Round No. 3
MadCornishBiker

Pro

Reason. yes

Good reason, no, simple, stupid, oversight.

I had I admit forgotten it in all that is happening in my life at the moment, but when I went to post my "round 4" what did I find?

I found the text below ready and waiting for me.

So in fact I had actually written my round 3, simply neglected to actually submit it it.

Doh, dumb or what!!

Anyway, here it is below, with quotes added to isolate it from any later comments appended

"I have to admit I am very curious to try and understand what alternatives there are in the creation versus evolution debate.

To me it is very simple, things either happen by accident, or they happen by design.

Accident = evolution.

Design = creation.

I really don't see any way of making it more complex than that.

One thing my opponent appears to forget is that evolution is based on theories such as that expressed by Darwin which attempt to explain where life came from.

Creation has no argument with DNA being able to adapt, though I do object to the use of the word mutate, because if DNA could not do that the birth of a child could never take place will stop since DNA changes every time a different type of cell needs to be formed to create that complex structure which is the human body.

Creation, as described in Scripture merely explains the reason for that ability to adapt.

As for "natural selection" creation has no objection to that either, because all laterally describes is the process which the creator built into every creature to allow it to change to fit the circumstances it finds itself in. It has been scientifically shown that, even in human beings, it can take less than one generation to cause DNA to adapt. This was shown in an experiment involving diet, and only diet, and was carried out in a period of a few years. Unfortunately I cannot supply a reference for that I will say it was in a program about food, and or weight control, on the BBC and I believe supported by the open University.

This does backup the idea of diet triggering adaptation within a kind, or what was once referred to as a species before the meaning of the word species was expanded.

Of course there are various understandings of what creation means many of them depending on only a very brief reading of Genesis without any real consideration of what it is saying.

There are also, or have been, a number of theories of evolution, but the whole basis of evolution is that it simply happened will stop no creator, because that means God and most evolutionists will tell you that God doesn't exist, it just happened.

I talked about complexity of design, indicating design rather than accident, and therefore indicating a designer, someone who organised the appearance of everything we see.

Admittedly there is even in that theory a certain amount of variation possible, but I admit I am completely sold on the version laid out in the Bible, provided it is read and considered carefully taking all possible factors into account, including the physical evidence in the world around us.

One argument some people use against any version of creation is the argument of time. My question to them is, what provably reliable, demonstrable, method of measuring time that far back, even 5000 years back, do we actually have?

The answer is that we don't.

True the available methods can the proven to work accurately under current conditions, but who knows what changes to conditions have made on these methods in the past. There really is absolutely no way we can do anything but have educated guesses.

The Earth has undergone many cataclysmic changes in its history. The loss of whatever gas, which I believe to be water vapour, NASA believes was present in the thermosphere, as well as the changes which caused the crushed of the Earth to fragment and tip, in such a way that the resultant tectonic plates are now moving very slowly under at least one neighbour, and tipping such that Mountains, like Everest, are very slowly getting ever higher.

I believe the cataclysmic event which caused both the loss of water vapour in the hemisphere, and the shattering of the Earth's crust forming tectonic plates, to be the deluge Scripture talks about.

Scripture also tells us that in the time of Peleg, a little while after the deluge "the Earth was divided". That is a Scripture or explanation for the separation of the continents, which would not be known to those on planet at the time, and would only be known to outside observer, such as God and his spirit beings.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

This fits in with the geologically proven fact that the Earth was originally a single continent, and the geological layers were once flat, but are now tilted at various angles. It also would go some way to explaining the dramatic climate change that happen in some regions of the Earth, at some point. The facts of the above changes are thoroughly proven. The causes of them, and the timescale over which they happened is not.

To me all of this helps prove the truth of Scripture, and therefore the creation account, which if true can also only be the most logical explanation of how we got here.

In fact creationism makes no predictions whatever about the distribution of fossils. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture which dictates anything about fossil distribution.

As for contention 2, that actually proves nothing either way. The fact that two distinct types share similar characteristics is hardly surprising. Our Creator is a very intelligent being, who would not necessarily make any more changes in designing between types than when necessary. And when you stop to think that one of the things which humanity shares many of its DNA characteristics with is a banana, all that demonstrates is intelligent economy of design.

What is more logical than a creator who created life with a built-in computer program, which only needed minor alterations to make major changes in the various kinds he created.

To counter contention 2, one might as well point out that despite the very different proportions of animal skeletons, basically they have the same structure. For instance the dog hind leg has precisely the same bones in it, however the thigh-bone very much shorter making the knee a lot higher, and the dog walks on the toes of its foot, with its heel well off the ground.

A giraffe, for all it has a much longer neck than any human has precisely the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do, and in fact if you look carefully the bone structure of most fish is similar, if not exactly the same.

Our highly intelligent designer, has as I said earlier simply employed a great economy of design. As the best designers will tell you if it works don't fix it.

Again, to me the way our Creator works is extremely logical."

Again I apologise for my oversight. It was stupid in the extreme and I am embarrassed by it, but relieved that I set this up for 5 rounds rather than the 3 I was going to at first.

Actually I shall leave this unexpanded on and allow my opponent chance to "catch up" on my reasoning.

Again I apologise.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments and apology; I accept the apology. Now, onto my opponent's arguments!

My opponent's first statements are:
"I have to admit I am very curious to try and understand what alternatives there are in the creation versus evolution debate.

"To me it is very simple, things either happen by accident, or they happen by design.

Accident = evolution.

Design = creation."

My opponent, despite my refute in round 2 (which he appears to have ignored), is still making an appeal to ignorance fallacy by stating that evolution occurs through accident alone. It does not. I would ask my opponent to see my refute in round 2 to show this. As he has not even attempted to refute it, merely ignore it; I extend my refute for that.

As for the "alternatives" to the Bible and Evolution, allow me to give my opponent some examples:
The ancient Egyptians believed that the world arose from the chaotic, lifeless waters of "Nu" (likely inspired by the Nile)
An ancient Greek tale believed that man was formed out of mud by a titan called Prometheus and then the Goddess Athena breathed life into it; this turned it into a human male.
Those were only two alternatives. My point from round one, therefore, stands; that my opponent attempting to debunk evolution will not strengthen his position whatsoever.

"One thing my opponent appears to forget is that evolution is based on theories such as that expressed by Darwin which attempt to explain where life came from." The Theory of Evolution in itself doesn't try to explain where life came from, which is what [the ToE] I'm defending. It's true, however, that now the theory is being applied to try to explain how life originated (or "came from", as my opponent puts it). Nevertheless, I fail to see how this point is relevant at all.

"Creation has no argument with DNA being able to adapt, though I do object to the use of the word mutate, because if DNA could not do that the birth of a child could never take place will stop since DNA changes every time a different type of cell needs to be formed to create that complex structure which is the human body."

I am very confused by the phrasing of this argument. Allow me to interpret what it means. If I misinterpret it then please let me know in your refute(s).

""Creation has no argument with DNA being able to adapt, though I do object to the use of the word mutate, because if DNA could not do that [mutate, then] the birth of a child ((could never take place)) will stop since DNA changes every time a different type of cells needs to be formed to create that complex structure which is the human body.""

My opponent appears to be saying that if DNA doesn't mutate then children cannot "take place" [be born/conceived] because the DNA wouldn't be able to change. Well, since we're both agreed that DNA does mutate, I see no point in this statement.

"Creation, as described in Scripture merely explains the reason for that ability to adapt."
My opponent gives no source for this claim. Until he does, I will dismiss the argument.

"As for "natural selection" creation has no objection to that either, because all [it] laterally describes is the process which the creator built into every creature to allow it to change to fit the circumstances it finds itself in. It has been scientifically shown that, even in human beings, it can take less than one generation to cause DNA to adapt. This was shown in an experiment involving diet, and only diet, and was carried out in a period of a few years. Unfortunately I cannot supply a reference for that I will say it was in a program about food, and or weight control, on the BBC and I believe supported by the open University."

Again, I'm not sure how to take this argument. It's satisfying to know that creation doesn't object to natural selection; but my opponent appears to be using this as proof for a Creator. I fail to see how:
Natural selection happens, therefore, Creator exists
can be proved; I'll ask my opponent to clarify on this.

"There are also, or have been, a number of theories of evolution, but the whole basis of evolution is that it simply happened will stop no creator, because that means God and most evolutionists will tell you that God doesn't exist, it just happened."

I'm really struggling to understand what my opponent is saying. If he's
a) trying to debunk evolution; I have already shown how this does nothing for his argument or
b) trying to show how creation is logical - he makes no mention of creation, only how evolution "will stop no creator" without providing proof for this at all.

"I talked about complexity of design, indicating design rather than accident, and therefore indicating a designer, someone who organised the appearance of everything we see."
Allow me to narrow this down a bit further:
"...design, indicating design". That's circular reasoning. Not logical.

If my opponent is saying that:
"Everything looks designed
Therefore there is a designer"

then I would like to point out how this is not logical at all. How something looks to someone is purely subjective. I can say that it doesn't look designed at all, so, therefore, there is no designer. Now I have proved that there is no designer and you have proved that there is. Not logic - only opinion as to how something looks.

"One argument some people use against any version of creation is the argument of time. My question to them is, what provably reliable, demonstrable, method of measuring time that far back, even 5000 years back, do we actually have?

The answer is that we don't."

Well, the answer is we do. For example, uranium decay, carbon dating, argon-argon dating, fission track dating helium, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, neon-neon etc... The list goes on and on, and on.

"True the available methods can the proved to work accurately under current conditions, but who knows what changes to conditions have made on these methods in the past.[?] There really is absolutely no way we can do anything but have educated guesses."

The answer to your question is geologists do. They are not (contrary to popular belief) idiots and do know how to take into account factors and variation. This is why it is trusted throughout the scientific community. My opponent appears to make the [incorrect] assumption that people dating rocks don't take into account all of these things.

"The Earth has undergone many cataclysmic changes in its history. The loss of whatever gas, which I believe to be water vapour, NASA believes was present in the thermosphere, as well as the changes which caused the crushed of the Earth to fragment and tip, in such a way that the resultant tectonic plates are now moving very slowly under at least one neighbour, and tipping such that Mountains, like Everest, are very slowly getting ever higher.

I believe the cataclysmic event which caused both the loss of water vapour in the hemisphere, and the shattering of the Earth's crust forming tectonic plates, to be the deluge Scripture talks about."

My opponent provides no evidence for his belief. I need not make a refute when no logical claim has been made.

"Scripture also tells us that in the time of Peleg, a little while after the deluge "the Earth was divided". That is a Scripture or explanation for the separation of the continents, which would not be known to those on planet at the time, and would only be known to outside observer, such as God and his spirit beings.

Genesis 10:25 And to Eber there were two sons born. The name of the one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.

This fits in with the geologically proved fact that the Earth was originally a single continent, and the geological layers were once flat, but are now tilted at various angles. It also would go some way to explaining the dramatic climate change that happen in some regions of the Earth, at some point. The facts of the above changes are thoroughly proved. The causes of them, and the timescale over which they happened is not."

According to my opponent, the explanation for the Earth's continents separating is the line:
"the Earth was divided". First, this is telling us [if it is indeed describing the separation of the continents] what happened - not why it happened and is therefore not an explanation. Second, this line is so vague that it could describe anything from two nation's waging war to me ploughing a field.

"To me all of this helps prove the truth of Scripture, and therefore the creation account, which if true can also only be the most logical explanation of how we got here." And to me it doesn't. My opponent asserts nothing but his own opinion here, nothing more. I need not refute this.

" In fact creationism makes no predictions whatever about the distribution of fossils. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture which dictates anything about fossil distribution."
While creationism can be logical if it makes no claim as to how life got to the present; this is what it does. So, this is like me making a fire truck that "makes no predictions on how to tackle fires". There is no logic in creationism (in this area) if it doesn't predict what to find in the fossil record.

"As for contention 2, that actually proves nothing either way. The fact that two distinct types share similar characteristics is hardly surprising. Our Creator is a very intelligent being, who would not necessarily make any more changes in designing between types than when necessary. And when you stop to think that one of the things which humanity shares many of its DNA characteristics with is a banana, all that demonstrates is intelligent economy of design."

My opponent states that it proves nothing either way, then attempts to prove how it does quite the opposite. However, based on my round 2 and my opponents first claim, I need not do anything as it shouldn't affect the voting or debate in any way.
I'm out of characters, so many thanks.

J
Debate Round No. 4
MadCornishBiker

Pro

I did not exactly ignore my opponents refutation of the simplicity of the equations, but really there was nothing more to say to that.

Is the thought that evolution happens by accident alone a fallacy?

Certainly every theory of evolution I have ever read, and there have been a few, has denied any thought of design or deliberate direction, and that is largely because the minute you introduce deliberate design and / or direction you have creation.

Since most evolutionists deny the existence of God then there really is no alternative left. You either have a creation or you have simple accident and "natural selection" which is controlled only by the accident of the creatures being born into a particular set of circumstances.

Creation means design, deliberate intention. Even the built in ability to adapt is deliberate.

But still, is creation the most logical answer? For that we have to look at much more than just animals, to everything in fact.

So what do we have?

We have a Universe which literally runs like clockwork, to the extent that NASA can predict years in advance when is the best time to launch a rocket to another planet.

Everything happens according to rigid laws. Did those laws simply evolve by accident or are the the product of a lawmaker?

As Ecologists are continually discovering to greater extents, this world is an ecostructure so man parts of which are interdependent. Could that have happened by accident? I don;t think so.

I do not see any relevance in what past cultures have believed, all that matters is what the observable evidence shows.

Not a bad interpretation of what I said but the point I was making is not that DNA mutates to allow for the changes in types of cells, but that it adapts according to a predetermined program built into it. Mutation is never beneficial, adaptation always is.

I admit I did not word that every well. I should have said that creation has no pick with what evolutionists call natural selection, simple as. My apologies for that, however it does not change my point . What evolution sees as natural selection is simply the ability to adapt to situations and circumstances to improve the chances of future generations. because it is designed in it is still natural selection, just not in the sense in which evolutionists mean it.

In a very real sense that is the crux of my argument, and to me it makes creation far more logical than evolution since whilst creation gives us reasons for everything all evolution gives us is more questions.

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate, and for the forgiveness of my error in missing round three, as well as for being gentleman enough not to take undue advantage of it.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments, refutes, and closing statements. My final responses are below.

My opponent asks the question: "Is the thought that evolution happens by accident alone a fallacy?" Yes. Please see my previous rounds.
"Certainly every theory of evolution I have ever read, and there have been a few, has denied any thought of design or deliberate direction, and that is largely because the minute you introduce deliberate design and / or direction you have creation."
I believe my opponent is clumping scientific theories with the more common use of the word. There is only one theory of evolution (that I'm aware of - and my opponent gives no reason for me to edit my belief in this), scientifically speaking. Other "theories" (e.g., the "Hovind Theory") are not scientific theories or, for that matter, scientific. They are, at best, hypotheses.

My opponent defends the idea of evolution being "accident" by asserting that the process of natural selection is "controlled only by the accident of the creatures being born into a particular set of circumstances." I'll respond.
a) Natural selection is its own master and is controlled by nothing - although its selecting process might be influenced by the organism's environment.
b) It is not accident as much as chance. The two words have slightly different meanings - it's not an accident.

"We have a Universe which literally runs like clockwork, to the extent that NASA can predict years in advance when is the best time to launch a rocket to another planet.

Everything happens according to rigid laws. Did those laws simply evolve by accident or are the the product of a lawmaker?"

Laws do not "evolve", as far as science can tell, laws of nature are the same, always were, and always will be. My opponent asserts that there must be a "lawmaker" because there are "laws". Allow me to point out that the laws my opponent is referring to are called the "laws of nature", so called because they are nature's laws - not made by anything (as far as the evidence suggests). So there is no need for a "lawmaker".
"Could that have happened by accident? I don;t think so." I need not do anything here as my opponent confirms that this is just his opinion and nothing more. Opinion does not equal argument.

My opponent also suggests a sort of "programmer" to account for the information "programmed" into the DNA. Again, this just looks like an opinion, not an argument.

My opponent sums up the crux of his argument as follows:
"creation [is] far more logical than evolution since whilst creation gives us reasons for everything all evolution gives us is more questions." Just because something gives us reasons doesn't make it logical. By that rather flawed logic, I can argue that because every religion gives us "answers" then every religion is right. But they all contradict each other, outlining why "it gives us answers" isn't the basis for an argument.

I thank my opponent, MadCornishBiker, for an entertaining and interesting debate. I accept my opponent's apology, don't worry about it!
I also would like to thank the voters for taking the time to read this debate through.

Kind regards,
J
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by areyn683 3 years ago
areyn683
When looking at evolution you need to look at generations of that organism. A prime example of evolution/adaption can be seen within bacteria because of their short life cycles. Since bacteria has to adapt to antibiotics its reorganizing its traits and the resistant strands are becoming dominate over time. This would lead someone to believe organisms have changed over time on numerous occasions to specific circumstances, which contradicts creationism. Plus the fact we're made from all the same building blocks would support we came from a common origin.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
madcornishgamehen, all I do is select the negative? So the universe is under the watchful eye of a celestial dictator who drown his own children, but we shouldnt focus on that?

Nothing that goes behind it? Are you prepared to defend, or make excuses for the violence youre all loving POS god commanded?

Sounds like defending the fictional monster and ignoring the "negative" is a form of the Stockholm Syndrome :)

Your captor has your brain completely controlled, or in laymen's terms youre brainwashed :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress " but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation " you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity " it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

Variation + differential reproduction + heredity = Natural Selection

This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
"This environment is neither controlled or predicted"
I wonder how they predict volcanic eruptions if the environment's not predictable...
Are they lying to us, too?
Posted by v3nesl 3 years ago
v3nesl
This idea that natural selection is not random - that's really just wrong. Natural selection claims that environmental pressures 'decide' what survives. This environment is neither controlled or predicted, so it is indeed random.

I think it's significant that evolutionists want to hedge on 'random'. I think they know better at some level, know how woefully inadequate Darwinian evolution is as an explanation of what we see.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 3 years ago
MadCornishBiker
@ devient.genie

What I do think is that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about because if you did you couldn't possibly say what you just have. Simple as.

All you have proved is that you know all the negative sounding bits, with nothing of what goes behind it. You are judging what you don't have the slightest understanding of.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Cornishgamehen, you think the reason for all the stars and galaxies is a universal dictator who ordered men , women and children killed, end of story, you worship a sick unjust cruel character written about in an old collection of writings, grow up :)
Posted by MadCornishBiker 3 years ago
MadCornishBiker
No, I am afraid you are very wrong. God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not an answer, he is the answer.

All you are showing, especially with your comment about what a "Christian" might say shows is how ignorant of scripture you actually are, let alone of the world around you.

Sorry, but it really is as simple as that.

I could lighten your darkness, but would you really want me too? Have you even got the time to spare? because to take you from your current level of ignorance to a state of knowledge would take a lot of time, and effort, especially from you.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
madcornishgamehen, god is Not an explanation, its a placeholder for those who lack the courage or intellectual honesty to say "I dont know"

Question: How did the universe that we live in come into existence?

1) christian says: Thats an easy question to answer. A supernatural being that drown his own children and organized a human sacrifice did it, we call him god.

2) muslim says: Thats an easy question to answer. A misogynistic bully who rode on a flying horse to heaven did it, we call him allah

3) Intellectual Advocate says: I dont know, thats a great question. Lets keep asking great questions, rolling up our sleeves looking for answers, and then make decisions based on the evidence that we find :)

IDIOTS 6:13--Allegories, parables, opinions, apologies, metaphors, interpretations and excuses, these are the ingredients of the religious mind :)

Inept 5:55--Logic, reason, evidence, critical thinking and facts are religions natural enemies :)
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Apology accepted, my friend.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, so conduct to Con. Pro had some points where it was hard to decipher what he was saying due to skipping out important parts, so S&G to Con. Arguments to Con, for all the reasons that other voters have already stated.
Vote Placed by DudeWithoutTheE 3 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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: Conduct is a tie - dropped round is a factor, but I dislike Con's push debating - his burden in this debate is to prove one or more other answer is as or more logical than creation, not just that there are other explanations. That said, arguments because pro's case has all the flaws creationist arguments always have, and Con does a good enough job of pointing them out - 'complete accident' and 'intelligent design' are just not an exhaustive list of possibilities. Con explains how selection works as an alternative to the above very well.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were equally convincing. Conduct to Con because Pro accidentally forfeited.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit of round... illogical contentions... poor grammar... this all goes to Con.
Vote Placed by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar: Pro used many incoherent sentences and I really couldn't decipher his intention. Arguments: Con pointed out many fallacies in Pro's thinking. It is clear that Con's position is the logical answer.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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: Pro repeated a lot of his arguments, that evolution is random, but that's just not true, and Con pointed out exactly why it wasn't true. (Natural selection etc.) Con was able to refute all of Pro's points, (many of which were repeated long after Con refuted them) and Con was able to bring a great many points into light contributing to one resolution: Creation is not the most logical answer.
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
MadCornishBikerMysticEggTied
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: pro had a very bad argument all around. Cons was way more logical and easy to understand. Everything else was tied