The Instigator
moonshine311111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

pick a debate

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,227 times Debate No: 9045
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

moonshine311111

Pro

round 1 pick some topics you want to debate on and your position on those topics
round 2-5 i will choose a topic to debate you on
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank moonshine for challenging me to this debate, I hope it turns out well.

I will list 3 topics of different topics and declare my positions on them. For convenience, I will frame them all to be in the context of CON, so our actual positions in this debate will seem reflective. Furthermore, I will ignore the obvious opportunity to start debates with ridiculously obviously propositions, such as if A is A.

So here are my 3 topics - they are all diverse. The topics deals with religion, philosophy, and science, respectively. To make it even more clear, I will include the category the topic is in in parenthesis.

============================================================================
1. CON - The Christian God's existence can be accounted for. (religion)
2. CON - Qualia is a irreducible, non-physical entity. (philosophy)
3. CON - Either Evolution or the Big Bang are flawed theories of what they mean to explain. (science)
============================================================================

Those should be diverse enough. For the science category, I even allowed the opportunity for you to choose either evolution or the Big Bang to debate about (the only other commonly controversial science topic I can think of is global warming, and that isn't a favorite of mine exactly :P).

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
moonshine311111

Pro

i would like to thank my opponent for excepting my challenge.
1. CON - The Christian God's existence can be accounted for. (religion)- well i suck at debating religion (as you saw in my last debate)
2.im not good at philosophy
3. i know quite a bit about evolution so we'll do number 3.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
righto so we will be debating evolution is it a flawed theory? i will be pro. let's get started

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

8 flaws
TheSkeptic

Con

So it seems my opponent wants to argue against the merits of evolution. Fair enough, my burden then is to show that evolution is not a flawed theory. Since my opponent lists 8 flaws, I will respond to them in the corresponding order.

Also, it's quite obvious that my opponent has copy-pasted his entire argument. The grammar and complexity is so different from his own writing style (look at his introduction and his other debates) that it would seem that I wouldn't even need a link to show where he stole it from. Unfortunately for him, I have that link:

http://www.epm.org...

A quick scan will demonstrate that it's almost, if not completely, verbatim. Now don't get me wrong - I'm fine with borrowing other arguments. But to use them without citing a source is intellectually dishonest.

====================
#1 - The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance--they had to be designed and created.
====================

The meat of my opponent's argument here relies on the concept of "irreducible complexity"[1], which proposes that because each part of a biological system is needed for a certain function to work (like a mousetrap to trap mice), there would be no gradual process that evolution would work by. And in fact, this would seem like a somewhat plausible criticism.

A simple rebuttal to this argument is to understand the important concept of exaptation[2], which is distinct from adaption because it refers to "a feature that performs a function but that was not produced by natural selection for its current use." This explains why there are seemingly irreducibly complex systems, and of how they arised.

So let's take the mousetrap analogy creationists love to abuse. They argue that a moustrap needs ALL it's pieces to achieve it's function, which is to catch mice. And this is true - you need the board, the spring, the bait, etc. for it to work. However, this can simply have been an exaptation. Let's take away everything but the board and a clip - a simpler organism. Instead of the function still being catching mice, it would in fact can serve as a paper weight, or as a tie clip. This is how complex traits can evolve - as they get more complex their function can change. A paper weight can evolve into a mousetrap, like how feathers probably used to function as insulation and now are used for flying.

====================
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
====================

No, information science does NOT teach that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. First of all, you have to define what you mean by "complex" information. Secondly, you have also have to realize that there are many intricate and seemingly complex physical phenomena with perfectly naturalistic explanations. Take snowflakes for example! Each are very unique, but the explanation for such a complex formation is simply the way how water molecules bond.

And when in the world did every SETI proponent become inextricably linked to evolutionists?

====================
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
====================

What you are referring to is simply only one type of mutation, namely point mutations. It's true that these type of mutations don't add new genetic information, but simply change the structure of a gene (which, by the way, can create new traits - and this is important in itself).

However, if you were to ask of me an example of a mutatin that increases genetic information, then a very obvious one is gene duplication[3]. As it's name implies, it is "is any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene," which is a very important evolutionary event since it very well does increase genetic information.

====================
4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
====================

Only a fundamental understanding of physics will easily destroy this argument. The second law of thermodynamics states that "in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted[4]." Notice the important phrase CLOSED SYSTEM.

We have yet to know anything that violates the second law of thermodynamics, and evolution certainly isn't a viable candidate. Do you want to know why we are an open system as opposed to a closed one? LOOK UP AT THE SKY. There's something called the sun (a major supplier of energy) and space.

====================
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
====================

There are TONS of transitional fossils - in fact, to be specific every population of organisms are transitional fossils! The term transitional form is more of a laymen term used to symbolize a particular species that vividly demonstrates a major shift between species (between those that swim and those that walk, etc.). However, to be specific there is no definite line; the idea of a transitional fossil is merely a human construct.

Yet, just to appease my opponent, I will supply one very famous example: the Archaeopteryx[5]. It's a clear transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs.

====================
6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
====================

I can't feasibly refute this argument without any clear examples of these supposedly scientific follies. The evolution of the genus Homo is rich with fossils, so unless you can give me pivotal reasons as to why we should refuse all fossils, there is nothing left to say. Sure, they may have been some mistakes or forgeries, but these blunders do NOT represent the scientific community as a whole but merely the fallibility of several individual scientists.

====================
7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
====================

First of all, give me a study or a link to such examples - if I can't identify the procedure then I don't know if whether or not it's the experimentors fault (which is often the case) or a flaw in the science. This is the basic underpinnings of the scientific method. The problem is that you cite specific examples of when radioactive dating supposedly fails, but you don't give me a chance to see it for myself!

Secondly, the fundamental basis for radioactive decay are an array of physical laws. It's based on the principle that once the energy levels are tipped over, the system will become inherently unstable and attempt to achieve ground state
via radioactive decay.
====================
8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
====================

Even if a vestigial organ was proved to have a use, which can occur due to exaptation, this doesn't do anything to attack evolution. The mere existence of a vestigial organ -- whether it works or not -- demonstrates that there is a anatomical similarity, which is actually one of the fields that are evidence for evolution[6]!

====================
Conclusion
====================

I can't say anything about the author who wrote this - he is simply laughable. I want to see my opponent's actual rationale, so seeing his response will certainly be interesting.

---Reference---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.panspermia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
moonshine311111

Pro

moonshine311111 forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

A forfeit - darn it.
Debate Round No. 3
moonshine311111

Pro

moonshine311111 forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

Another forfeit - darn it even more.
Debate Round No. 4
moonshine311111

Pro

moonshine311111 forfeited this round.
TheSkeptic

Con

I'm disappointed to see this debate result so many forfeits - the winner is obviously me.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by moonshine311111 7 years ago
moonshine311111
I feel ashamed that I plagerized it.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
He plagiarized the whole thing from here:
http://www.epm.org...

7 points to TheSkeptic.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I suspected it from the vast difference in writing style. I confirmed it by a simple Google search :). I posted a link in my debate round; he copied almost everything (left out 2 points due to character limit I presume).
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
To bad.. this debate could have been good. How did you find out he plagiarized?
Posted by moonshine311111 7 years ago
moonshine311111
alright
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I'll list around 3 topics, and you can choose. Also, I won't choose very obvious ones, like if whether or not A is A.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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 TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
moonshine311111TheSkepticTied
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