The Instigator
donkey
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
distraff
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

request for creationits

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 1 vote the winner is...
distraff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 217 times Debate No: 94256
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

donkey

Con

>>You can believe anything you want about how the universe was created and in fact a lot of evolutionists who are not creationists believe that God made the universe and the first life.<<

Not many evolutionists believe that.

However, the fact that humans evolved from lower life-forms is undeniable.<<

Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. That false idea is rejected by genetics.

>> We have examples of complex abilities evolving like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, and bacteria resistance.<<

However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented.

>>We have a fossil record showing the evolution of humans from ape in the lower layers to more and more human-like.<<

No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils.

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have none.

Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible.

It is scientifically impossible for dead elements to produce life.
distraff

Pro

>> Not many evolutionists believe that.

It is quite clear in survey data that about 40% of Americans are creationist, 20% are non-theistic evolutionists, and about 30% are theistic evolutionists [1]. So there are Also, about 42% of protestants, 58% of mainline protestants, and 58% of catholics believe in the theory of evolution [2].

>> Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. That false idea is rejected by genetics.

The vast majority of scientists are evolutionist. According to surveys of scientific opinion 98% of scientists are evolutionist and 2% are creationist according to one Pew Research poll in 2014. [3]

If you think that genetics refutes evolution then present the evidence.

>>However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented.

All I was trying to point out that we have seen complex things evolve and this refutes the creationist idea of irreducible complexity or that complexity proves creationism.

>> No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils.

There are many for land animal, mammal, bird, whale, horse, and human evolution for example. There are australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo neanderthal as examples of human evolution. We have archeaopteryx as an example of bird evolution. Tiktaalik is an example of a transitional between fish and amphibians. There are many more examples. Here are a couple places to learn more about them [4][5].

>> Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible.

You have presented no evidence that bones are impossible to evolve.

>> It is scientifically impossible for dead elements to produce life.

That is abiogenesis not Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] http://www.pewforum.org...
[3] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
Debate Round No. 1
donkey

Con

>>It is quite clear in survey data that about 40% of Americans are creationist, 20% are non-theistic evolutionists, and about 30% are theistic evolutionists [1]. So there are Also, about 42% of protestants, 58% of mainline protestants, and 58% of catholics believe in the theory of evolution [2].<>

Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks.

Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. That false idea is rejected by genetics.

>>The vast majority of scientists are evolutionist. According to surveys of scientific opinion 98% of scientists are evolutionist and 2% are creationist according to one Pew Research poll in 2014. [3]<>If you think that genetics refutes evolution then present the evidence.<>However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented.

>>All I was trying to point out that we have seen complex things evolve and this refutes the creationist idea of irreducible complexity or that complexity proves creationism.<> No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils.

>>There are many for land animal, mammal, bird, whale, horse, and human evolution for example. There are australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo neanderthal as examples of human evolution. We have archeaopteryx as an example of bird evolution. Tiktaalik is an example of a transitional between fish and amphibians. There are many more examples. Here are a couple places to learn more about them [4][5].<> Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible.

>>You have presented no evidence that bones are impossible to evolve.<>That is abiogenesis not Darwin's Theory of Evolution.<<

It was originally but it became an embarrassment for evolution because they could not explain how life began.

Years ago they taught that life started in some primordial ooze. That is what I was taught in high school. It was started by a Russian scientists, but I can't remember his name. If you are interested google "primordial ooze."

I don't understand what has happened, This post contains your thoughts and my responses but It seems that I have not responded. Maybe this will clear the problem up. If not I may have to abandon this discussion and catch you later.
distraff

Pro

>> Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks.

I never said that majority opinion determines what the truth is. That is a strawman argument. However when 98% of experts are saying one thing, and have been saying that for 150 years, then there is probably really good evidence for the theory, and probably not that much evidence against it or else it wouldn't convince so many experts. For example, if 98% of computer experts believed that a certain operating system is too insecure to use, you would be wise to listen because they probably have some very good points.

>> Many scientists deny man evolved from apes.

Only about 2% of scientists are creationists. This may be "many" compared to 2 people, but is very very small compared to the total number of scientists. Thats like saying many people live in Vatican City when only a few hundred do.

>> That false idea is rejected by genetics.

I am going to ask you again. How does genetics refute evolution?

>> However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution.

There are different kinds of evolution. There is evolution of new species, and then there is the evolution of new complex abilities within a species. Both of these involve evolution through natural selection and mutations. Again, I was not trying to demonstrate the evolution of new species. I was only trying to show that complex abilities can evolve. This shows that the creationist argument that "complexity refutes evolution" is refuted by counter-example.

>> For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented.

Actually scientists have compared this evolved bacteria to the original bacteria and identified the exact mutations that gave them that ability. This mutation was not in the original bacteria. Scientists actually got a sample of normal bacteria in a lab to evolve this ability by putting them with nylon and making that their major food source. They documented the mutations that happened and the affect of those mutations on its ability to digest nylon [1].

>> No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils.

I listed these intermediates in the last round and you never directly addressed them.

>> Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible.

We see simple sea creatures made of soft tissue before we see bony ones. It is possible that the ability to make bone came from genes that produced softer tissue that evolved to make harder tissue. You can't say it is genetically impossible without actually proving it to be impossible. Just because you can't think of a way it could have happened doesn't mean it didn't.

>> It was originally but it became an embarrassment for evolution because they could not explain how life began.
>>Years ago they taught that life started in some primordial ooze. That is what I was taught in high school. It was started by a Russian scientists, but I can't remember his name. If you are interested google "primordial ooze."

Ok, give me a quote from an evolutionist a long time ago who claimed that Darwin's Theory of evolution involved abiogenesis. Darwin was the one who came up with evolution, find a quote from him.

The primordial ooze idea was a hypothesis some scientists had that maybe an electrical reaction sparked a chemical reaction that created the first set of self-replicating groups of molecules based on a simple version of DNA. This is very different than the theory of evolution that claims that natural selection and mutations can evolve existing species into new ones with new adaptations. The theory of evolution can't explain the origin of life because it requires life for natural selection and mutations to start evolving even if it is true, just like the Theory of Gravity can't explain the origin of life because it simple doesn't have the mechanisms to create life.

I want to talk about how retroviruses are evidence for evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited [2].

In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion [2].

Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA [2].

We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference [2].

Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence [2].

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...
Debate Round No. 2
donkey

Con

Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks.

>>I never said that majority opinion determines what the truth is.<<

You didn't say it but you certainly implied it.

>> That is a strawman argument. However when 98% of experts are saying one thing, and have been saying that for 150 years, then there is probably really good evidence for the theory, <<

Then present the evidence instead of just saying there is some. It doesn't matter if 100% say it is true, they could all be wrong unless there is scientific evidence to support what they say. I will make it easy for you; present one thing the TOE preaches with the supporting evidence that can be verified.

<>Only about 2% of scientists are creationists. This may be "many" compared to 2 people, but is very very small compared to the total number of scientists. Thats like saying many people live in Vatican City when only a few hundred do.<<

Again the statistics are irrelevant. Verifiable evidence is necessary. Give me 3 things that provide evidence for man evolving from apes. Make that one thing. Pleas don't say man is an ape. That is an arbitary opinion made by evolutionists.

>>I am going to ask you again. How does genetics refute evolution?<<

I just showed you. If you don't accept it, show me where it is wrong.

>> However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution.

There are different kinds of evolution. There is evolution of new species, and then there is the evolution of new complex abilities within a species. Both of these involve evolution through natural selection and mutations. Again, I was not trying to demonstrate the evolution of new species. I was only trying to show that complex abilities can evolve. This shows that the creationist argument that "complexity refutes evolution" is refuted by counter-example.

>> For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented.

>>Actually scientists have compared this evolved bacteria to the original bacteria and identified the exact mutations that gave them that ability.<<

Mutation do not change a species into a different species. They only alter a characteristic of the offspring. Since the bacteria remained bacteria, there has been no evolution.

>>This mutation was not in the original bacteria. Scientists actually got a sample of normal bacteria in a lab to evolve this ability by putting them with nylon and making that their major food source. They documented the mutations that happened and the affect of those mutations on its ability to digest nylon [1].<<

Wonderful. However it they remained bacteria, there was no evolution. Do you really not understand that evolution preaches a change of species. Their basic doctrine is that all we see to day started with a single source. It is amusing that they don't even know what the original was. They start with guess and have continued guessing for 100+ years and still don't know

No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils.

>>I listed these intermediates in the last round and you never directly addressed them.<<

You didn't provide any evidence they were intermediates. You just said they were with no supporting evidence. I

We see simple sea creatures made of soft tissue before we see bony ones. It is possible that the ability to make bone came from genes that produced softer tissue that evolved to make harder tissue. You can't say it is genetically impossible without actually proving it to be impossible. Just because you can't think of a way it could have happened doesn't mean it didn't.<<

It is not what I think. It is what genetics allows

Ok, give me a quote from an evolutionist a long time ago who claimed that Darwin's Theory of evolution involved abiogenesis. Darwin was the one who came up with evolution, find a quote from him.<<

All I am saying is that is what I was taught in high school and college. The primordal ooze is about abiogenesis

>>I want to talk about how retroviruses are evidence for evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited [2].<<

Unless the object that is attacked changes species, wich it doesn't, there has been no evolution. Give me an example what an A becomes a B. If you can't, and you can't, you have n case.

>>In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion [2].<<

Wonderful. Haved tehy caused a changne of species yet?

>>We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference [2].<<

Wonderful. Tell me what the original life was and what it became after the retrovirus did its thing.

>>Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence [2]<<

Still scientist can test DNA and without knowing the source, they can positively say it is from an ape or from a man. When they can't do that, you have made your case. Until they can all you hve is an unsupported opinion.

I had to chop this up a bit because I ran out or characters I could use.
distraff

Pro

>> Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks.
>> You didn't say it but you certainly implied it.

I never said it and I never implied it. I brought that up as a rebuttal of your claim that many scientists deny evolution. In reality it is a very small proportion of the scientific community.

>> Wonderful. However it they remained bacteria, there was no evolution. Do you really not understand that evolution preaches a change of species. Their basic doctrine is that all we see to day started with a single source.

Here is the definition of what evolution is:
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. [1]

Evolution or evolving does not require creating a new species. An existing species can evolve new traits. I was not using this example to prove macro-evolution of the evolution of new species. The biggest problem creationists have with evolution is how can something simple become complex? I presented nylon eating bacteria as an example of the evolution of a complex trait.

>> All I am saying is that is what I was taught in high school and college. The primordal ooze is about abiogenesis

That was not all you were saying, you were claiming that abiogenesis was part of the Theory of Evolution. But these are completely different ideas explaining completely different things, with completely different mechanisms. You presented no evidence any scientist claimed abiogenesis was taught as evolution.

>>It is not what I think. It is what genetics allows

Again, show me that genetics does not allow the evolution of bone. This is your example, present the evidence.

>> You didn't provide any evidence they were intermediates. You just said they were with no supporting evidence.
>> Then present the evidence instead of just saying there is some. It doesn't matter if 100% say it is true, they could all be wrong unless there is scientific evidence to support what they say. I will make it easy for you; present one thing the TOE preaches with the supporting evidence that can be verified.
>> Again the statistics are irrelevant. Verifiable evidence is necessary. Give me 3 things that provide evidence for man evolving from apes. Make that one thing. Pleas don't say man is an ape. That is an arbitary opinion made by evolutionists.

I will clarify on the list I already presented earlier. I was asked for a list of transitional but if more details are requested I will provide them.

We have the Australopithecines which were basically ape and from the fossil 'Lucy' we see they very similar to the ape fossils below them but had a pelvis and lower body far more likely humans that made them bipedal just like humans [3].

Further up we see Homo Habilis with an average cranial capacity of 750 cc. Chimps have 350 cc, and humans have 1400 cc [4]. Further up we see Homo Erectus. Early homo erectus have 900 cc and later ones have 1100 cc [5]. In fact when you take all the fossil hominids and look at cranial capacity you find a clear trend upward [6].

When you actually look at the fossils they become more and more human and less and less ape-like. Why would we see this trend if evolution was false and a flood did it? Wouldn't we see these fossils scattered everywhere, many with the dinosaurs, and certainly not at the top of the fossil record (since they are only a few million years old) sorted from ape-like to human-like. If you don't believe me, here is a website with a list of these fossils right here [7].

We even have Neanderthal DNA and they are very genetically distinct from humans [8]. They have less brain area devoted to social skills and higher reasoning [9].

>> Still scientist can test DNA and without knowing the source, they can positively say it is from an ape or from a man. When they can't do that, you have made your case. Until they can all you hve is an unsupported opinion.

First off we have Neanderthal DNA that is far outside the human genetic range so I guess I made my case. What I was trying to say with the retroviruses is that these retrovirus sequences were inserted by viruses. Humans and apes share 99% of these sequences. It is extremely improbable that these sequences were independently inserted by viruses into humans and chimps, and spread through the entire population, and have 99% in the exact same place. Also, if they were independently inserted in different species of ape and humans, then why do we share many of the mutations in these sequences with apes? Why do more similar apes share more of these sequences and the mutations in these sequences? This only makes sense if humans and apes inherited our DNA and these ERVs. This is strong evidence of evolution [10].

>>Unless the object that is attacked changes species, wich it doesn't, there has been no evolution. Give me an example what an A becomes a B. If you can't, and you can't, you have n case.
>>Wonderful. Haved tehy caused a changne of species yet?
>> Mutation do not change a species into a different species. They only alter a characteristic of the offspring. Since the bacteria remained bacteria, there has been no evolution.

We have observed many speciation events. For example we found two strains of Drosophila paulistorum (type of mosquito) that evolved to the point that they could not reproduce with the original species. There are many more examples provided in my source [11].

Also there are ring species which are species that have moved around in a circle and forming different populations that are different very similar species. The end of the ring meets the beginning and are very different from the original even though each of the other groups are similar to the ones that are next to them. We have many ring species like a Salamander in California Ensatina eschscholtzii and Greenish Warblers in Asia [12].

We also have Darwin's finches that flew over from South America into the Galapagos Islands and evolved into 11 new species that have evolved beaks adapted to different diets like seeds, insects, and nuts [13].

>> It is amusing that they don't even know what the original was. They start with guess and have continued guessing for 100+ years and still don't know
>> Wonderful. Tell me what the original life was and what it became after the retrovirus did its thing.

We know that Great Danes and Chihuahuas come from a common ancestor and yet don't know what the exact common ancestor was? Was it a dog that descended from wolves? What was it like? Evolution has strong genetic and fossil evidence so we can know that life is related although we may not know what the original was exactly.

[1] http://www.dictionary.com...
[2] http://www.livescience.com...
[3] https://iho.asu.edu...
[4] http://www.macroevolution.net...
[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[6] http://pandasthumb.org...
[7] http://humanorigins.si.edu...
[8] http://www.nature.com...
[9] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[10] http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...
[11] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[12] http://www.actionbioscience.org...
[13] http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 6 months ago
BackCommander
donkeydistraffTied
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: Con repeatedly ignored Pro's arguments and simply repeated arguments Pro had rebutted, losing him the conduct vote. Con's post on Round 2 is a jumbled mess of re-posts and in every round his sentences are short and choppy, losing him the s&g vote. Pro used an argument based off of findings and established facts, Con simply made claims that he had no evidence to support, making Pro's argument the much more convincing one. Pro was the only one who used any resources at all, netting him the sources vote.