The Instigator
colonelcoover
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

no hard evidence to evolution

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 54568
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

colonelcoover

Pro

no hard evidence to evolution
for starters how in the hell can something come from nothing
life can not make itself someone inteligant e.g GOD can do it ,that only be the most logical explanation

am am open to all peoples opnions and take them account

e.g god loves you
Ozzyhead

Con

Evolution is not about the origins of anything. It's only about change over time. Evolution has hard evidence. I would like to point out a flaw in the opening statement: how can something come from nothing is followed by something to do with God. Where did God come from? If God is a living being then God must have a creator, too. Life does not need an intelligent designer and this is supported by abiogenesis. A scientist provided a natural environment, and did not add any foreign substance and observed as something nonliving turned in to a living organism. Stephan Hawking also has a book that goes on to how particle waves can spontaneously form. Since everything that exists has some amount of energy and gravity to it, it is very likely that abiogenesis gave us a living specimen, which eventually evolved over time, and giving the right conditions, we humans came to life. Our DNA and fossil records have many similarities to other organisms. By the way, we did not evolve from chimpanzees. We evolved from an ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Now, having the historical and philosophical knowledge that I have, I would like to educate my opponent on the Abrahamic religions. My argument for round one is over, so weigh this in as you wish
Usually, when a prophet was written down, people would work towards those prophecies to be fulfilled. People noticed that part about Israel and worked for it. It's not a prophecy if it can be done by human who have access to the prophecy claim. Also, the Mayan's supposedly predicted the future accurately, too. How are they not the right ones to follow? Proof is tangible. It has to be measurable in some form, and it has to continuously be proven right for us to accept it as true. What exactly makes the stories true? Or for that matter, different? You realize how many Greek and Roman and other gods of the past have had similar stories to Jesus's story? Dying for others and coming back is arepeated theme among the prophets of ancient civilizations, and Christianity is one of the youngest of those stories. Do you also realize that the Christians stole Christmas and Easter from the Pagans? The Pagans celebrated the winter solstice. The Christians stole it, fancied it up, and made it theirs. Historical, philosophical and even biblical evidence will point to Jesus being born in a time that is not during or around the time of Christmas. Also, Easter was taken as well from the Pagans. They celebrated spring, as the sign of new life. That's why rabbits, which come out in spring for the first time of a year, agree associated with Easter.
Another thing, there is much lack of proof of many biblical claims. A big problem is that the Egyptians recorded just about everything that went on. They never recorded anything about owning slaves, and never had a single Hieroglyphic character relating to a large global flood.
Another thing to add is many psychological studies have been done that shows that being in a certain setting will cause certain reactions from your brain to affect your mood. If you are in a relaxed state of mind, and your body is relaxed, anything can freely form from your thought process, making you believe something is there either speaking with you, and/or being visual. The same things happen in a panic state of mind to help can you down.
And a problem with miracles: what's the difference between a rare, unlikely event that is occurring that is positive, and a miracle that we can detect? Nothing. So, we can't be the ones to claim what a miracle is until we can be the ones that can distinguish the difference between a rare positive event and a miracle.
But notice all this proof, or lack of proof, that I have pointed out, as well as the research of psychology, archeology, and history. With all this to back it up, in your eyes should be enough. But, in no way would you turn against your religious beliefs. You have one in about say 500 million religions, although I might be exaggerating a bit. AND, you have one of about 300,000 denominations of Christianity. You have a .000001 chance of having the right religion, and a .00001 of having the right denomination of Christianity.
Let me tell you something, besides this science FACTUAL evidence, the bible is why I stopped believing in god and any religion. And no, I didn't take it out of context. I was a devout Christian. I did not read to find flaws, I read to strengthen my beliefs in the time of need. I then realized my first problem. I noticed how much this being true affected me. I noticed how much I 'needed' it to be true. I noticed how If it is going to have a positive impact on my life and afterlife, then I'm going to hope for it to be true, and when you hope for something to be true, you tend to lean towards it, and you are quick to point out what is right and what you can prove, and you're quick to ignore what you don't like and what goes against what you like. So, I put that aside, and re-read it after I read it the first time, which by the way, if I didn't mention already, I looked for answers here, and left with only questions. Not anger, just questions. I then read again. I realized now if I take what I have read and try to find it's truth, I can't. There was no truth to it to me. I did not get angry at god. I did not go looking to become an atheist. I just looked at the bible like a book, and compared it to history and evidence.
Fact is, the bible is just a fabricated story used to scare and control people.
Let me jump back in to history. Alexander The Great also made the bible the law of the land when he ruled. Everyone had to be Christian and everyone had to teach it to their children. At the time, Christianity was a small religion that not many people knew of and much less believed. If it wasn't for Alexander The Great, Christianity wouldn't have spread or at least it would have been shelved as another crazy religion ancient times.
I look forward to the next round. I will state arguments about evidence for evolution, and if my opponent continues to argue about anything other than evolution, than I will argue whatever my opponent claims.
Debate Round No. 1
colonelcoover

Pro

colonelcoover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
colonelcoover

Pro

colonelcoover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
colonelcoover

Pro

colonelcoover forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead

Con

George Carlin was the greatest comedian who ever took the stage.
Debate Round No. 4
colonelcoover

Pro

colonelcoover forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead

Con

I guess George Carlin wasn't on your side for this debate. You must have prayed to the wrong one. You must have prayed to Adam Sandler. Now, he is funny enough for everyone, but you cannot beat George Carlin
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I agree that George Carlin was great, though I find Bill Maher has copied a lot of George Carlin's style.
Bill does a pretty good George Carlin.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LOL Luna!

I'm debating Evolution at the moment with CreationTruth.
CT thinks he has different approach to other Creationists, so let's see.
I've already highlighted the basis of his beliefs as fallacious and his sources as also fallacious and I'm waiting for his rebuttals.
He's using the old "Irreducible Complexity" argument that was defeated the day Michael Behe made it public. Because it exists only as an Argument Out Of Ignorance Fallacy.
Some biologist Behe is, more likely a Dunce, but he teaches it at university level.
That's a joke in itself!
:-D~
Posted by LunaLoutre 2 years ago
LunaLoutre
And this is how most debate on evolution go, ladies and gentlemen. LOL
Posted by MetalheadWolfman 2 years ago
MetalheadWolfman
For yourself.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
I know... sad... but would you give him conduct points or me or no one?
Posted by MetalheadWolfman 2 years ago
MetalheadWolfman
Lol... I like how he left after your first point.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
Even though he forfeited twice, would you guys give him conduct points if for my next argument I only said "blow me"?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Either Pro was trolling or got cold feet coz Con's argument was more than Pro bargained for.
Pro knew nothing about Evolution.
Like so many who start debates on Evolution.

Cannot understand why people start debates to attack that which they have never really studied properly.
That's the dumber than Dumb Creatard Mentality.

Aye M8z!
Posted by Jozza117 2 years ago
Jozza117
is it just me or is pro owned before he began :P
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
Why can't I read your comment?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
colonelcooverOzzyheadTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for R3 comment by Con, no sources were used.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
colonelcooverOzzyheadTied
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: Pro abandoned the debate thus conduct to Con. Pro presented no real argument only a troll statement and Con presented a good argument. Maybe Pro should have prayed to Joe Pesci, as George Carlin found he got 50/50 results from Joe, Pro probably doesn't even get that from his God.