Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

RFD for debate between Anon and Cook

AdventurerExplorer
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 2:00:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Scientific evidence does not support evolution"
Pro - Cook
Con - Anon

BOP - Pro says that Con has a BOP in showing that evolution is true since it is presented as science in the classrooms and that if it is not scientific then it should not be taught in the classrooms. Pro says that Con must show how evolution is true and that he must show how what he showed does not show evolution to be true. While this is true that Con holds a BOP though he has put up his case and defended it well which i will explain how in a min, But even if Pro did break down every evidence Con brought up, Pro made the the mistake of shifting the BOP on both of them. Since many times he has said that the evidence Con brought up could be explained by the bible. Which then shifts the BOP onto Pro since he now has to show the bible to be true. He could of been ok if he simply said "I dont know".

Websites
Con repeatedly has shown websites that are .edu and .org and even a .gov websites. While Pro has shown websites from the Creation institute and AIG which are biased.

Micro Vs Macro Evolution
Pro has brought up many times this defense against some of Con's claims, However Con has shown that both Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing only Macro takes a lot longer. If Pro supports Micro Evolution then he then supports Macro Evolution. What Pro should of done is gone after the dating methods to show that fossils aren't as old as we can tell but he didn't. Pro also brings up "Kinds" but fails to show what he means by "kind".

Credibility
Pro says that just because science says something does not mean it is true even though a vast majority support it. However he also shows some quotes from "scientists" who question evolution so that makes some of his arguments invalid. Also Con shows how you can become scientific and lists the scientific method and shows how evolution has passed the test and creation can not simply because it is a preconceived view.

Mutations
Pro says that there is no such thing and "beneficial mutations" and shows a experiment confirming such, However Con then debunks this claim and shows evidence for it with how microbes evolve to resit antibiotics, and they survive because a small fraction of them have mutations in there genes that made them survive. and those who survived got to pass there gens to the next generation.

Winner = Con
The Reason why is because after building up a strong proof for evolution and Pro who did do good in trying to debunk it just couldn't tear down the argument Con made in the first round and thus since he held his BOP Con wins.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 2:21:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:00:34 AM, AdventurerExplorer wrote:
"Scientific evidence does not support evolution"
Pro - Cook
Con - Anon

BOP - Pro says that Con has a BOP in showing that evolution is true since it is presented as science in the classrooms and that if it is not scientific then it should not be taught in the classrooms. Pro says that Con must show how evolution is true and that he must show how what he showed does not show evolution to be true. While this is true that Con holds a BOP though he has put up his case and defended it well which i will explain how in a min, But even if Pro did break down every evidence Con brought up, Pro made the the mistake of shifting the BOP on both of them. Since many times he has said that the evidence Con brought up could be explained by the bible. Which then shifts the BOP onto Pro since he now has to show the bible to be true. He could of been ok if he simply said "I dont know".

Websites
Con repeatedly has shown websites that are .edu and .org and even a .gov websites. While Pro has shown websites from the Creation institute and AIG which are biased.

Micro Vs Macro Evolution
Pro has brought up many times this defense against some of Con's claims, However Con has shown that both Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing only Macro takes a lot longer. If Pro supports Micro Evolution then he then supports Macro Evolution. What Pro should of done is gone after the dating methods to show that fossils aren't as old as we can tell but he didn't. Pro also brings up "Kinds" but fails to show what he means by "kind".

Credibility
Pro says that just because science says something does not mean it is true even though a vast majority support it. However he also shows some quotes from "scientists" who question evolution so that makes some of his arguments invalid. Also Con shows how you can become scientific and lists the scientific method and shows how evolution has passed the test and creation can not simply because it is a preconceived view.

Mutations
Pro says that there is no such thing and "beneficial mutations" and shows a experiment confirming such, However Con then debunks this claim and shows evidence for it with how microbes evolve to resit antibiotics, and they survive because a small fraction of them have mutations in there genes that made them survive. and those who survived got to pass there gens to the next generation.

Winner = Con
The Reason why is because after building up a strong proof for evolution and Pro who did do good in trying to debunk it just couldn't tear down the argument Con made in the first round and thus since he held his BOP Con wins.

A no brainer debate. no way anybody can say that there's NO scientific evidence for Evolution. there's a ton of it. I say this as a Christian and believer in God. I just think that God instigated the process. I think I could win a debate where I was Pro on this wording: "Atheists cannot Disprove that God does not drive the Evolutionary process." Put the burden of proof on the Atheists. I've challenged a particular atheist here to that very topic and he was chicken. but I wont name any names.Im above that. Huh Danger Mouse? LOL God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Cook123
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:41:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:00:34 AM, AdventurerExplorer wrote:
"Scientific evidence does not support evolution"
Pro - Cook
Con - Anon

BOP - Pro says that Con has a BOP in showing that evolution is true since it is presented as science in the classrooms and that if it is not scientific then it should not be taught in the classrooms. Pro says that Con must show how evolution is true and that he must show how what he showed does not show evolution to be true. While this is true that Con holds a BOP though he has put up his case and defended it well which i will explain how in a min, But even if Pro did break down every evidence Con brought up, Pro made the the mistake of shifting the BOP on both of them. Since many times he has said that the evidence Con brought up could be explained by the bible. Which then shifts the BOP onto Pro since he now has to show the bible to be true. He could of been ok if he simply said "I dont know".

Websites
Con repeatedly has shown websites that are .edu and .org and even a .gov websites. While Pro has shown websites from the Creation institute and AIG which are biased.

Micro Vs Macro Evolution
Pro has brought up many times this defense against some of Con's claims, However Con has shown that both Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing only Macro takes a lot longer. If Pro supports Micro Evolution then he then supports Macro Evolution. What Pro should of done is gone after the dating methods to show that fossils aren't as old as we can tell but he didn't. Pro also brings up "Kinds" but fails to show what he means by "kind".

Credibility
Pro says that just because science says something does not mean it is true even though a vast majority support it. However he also shows some quotes from "scientists" who question evolution so that makes some of his arguments invalid. Also Con shows how you can become scientific and lists the scientific method and shows how evolution has passed the test and creation can not simply because it is a preconceived view.

Mutations
Pro says that there is no such thing and "beneficial mutations" and shows a experiment confirming such, However Con then debunks this claim and shows evidence for it with how microbes evolve to resit antibiotics, and they survive because a small fraction of them have mutations in there genes that made them survive. and those who survived got to pass there gens to the next generation.

Winner = Con
The Reason why is because after building up a strong proof for evolution and Pro who did do good in trying to debunk it just couldn't tear down the argument Con made in the first round and thus since he held his BOP Con wins.

AdventurerExplorer, I don't think you have reasons for voting for Con, other than that he is your friend and that you were an evolutionist before reading the debate.

You are clearly a bit confused about the BOP, so let me help you out a bit with that. Let's assume that the only two options for our origins are Creation and evolution. My contention is that neither of them can be fully proven with scientific evidence. I think that the things we see in the world could be explained by either evolution or Creation, and thus can't prove either one. Yet evolution is taught as science, but Creation isn't. This means that there must be some evidence that undeniably points directly towards evolution and not Creation. For example, the strata in the ground could be explained by either millions of years of sediments piled up or by a massive flood. The strata can't prove either one. When I say that evidence Con presented could be explained from a Creationist viewpoint, I was not shifting the burden of proof, I was showing that Con's supposed evidence couldn't directly prove or point to evolution.

Adventurer now attacks my sources, saying AIG and ICR are biased. He hasn't bothered explaining how they are biased. Just because you may disagree with what my source supports, doesn't mean it is unreliable. Additionally, those weren't the only sources I used; I cited under my quotes and throughout my arguments.

I admit that I did not address the idea of Micro-Macro evolution and "kinds" in my round 3 argument due to character limit. This however doesn't help Con, whom the BOP is on, to prove evolution.

Adventurer says that evolution has passed the scientific method, yet doesn't provide any examples or evidence.

I don't think Adventurer has read my rounds 2 and 3 arguments concerning bacterial resistance, since he hasn't refuted or even discussed them. Yes, the mutation allows the bacterium to survive in the presence of antibiotics, but in its normal environment, the mutation is detrimental.

If someone is coming around, handcuffing people, and hauling them off to kill them, you'll live if you have deformed or no arms in such a way that the handcuffs can't get on you properly. That doesn't mean that the mutation that mutilated your arms was beneficial or that you're "evolving", it's just that the mutation resulted in beneficial outcomes in a certain condition. It is the same with bacteria having deformed proteins so that antibiotics can't bind with them correctly.

In round 2, I challenged Con to "give an example of a beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic complexity." He responded with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Is having a deformed cell structure an addition of useful genetic complexity?

On balance, the mutation is harmful. It doesn't add new information, and is disadvantageous in the bacterias' normal environment. This certainly does not prove a molecule can turn into a human.

It is interesting that the debate topic was evidence for evolution, yet Adventurer hasn't addressed any evidence for evolution other than bacteria resistance which I have already clearly explained in the debate and once more here. I would like for Adventurer to elaborate on how Con has defended his case well and to counter my arguments i made refuting the evidences that Con used to support evolution.
Cook123
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:42:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:21:23 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:00:34 AM, AdventurerExplorer wrote:
"Scientific evidence does not support evolution"
Pro - Cook
Con - Anon

BOP - Pro says that Con has a BOP in showing that evolution is true since it is presented as science in the classrooms and that if it is not scientific then it should not be taught in the classrooms. Pro says that Con must show how evolution is true and that he must show how what he showed does not show evolution to be true. While this is true that Con holds a BOP though he has put up his case and defended it well which i will explain how in a min, But even if Pro did break down every evidence Con brought up, Pro made the the mistake of shifting the BOP on both of them. Since many times he has said that the evidence Con brought up could be explained by the bible. Which then shifts the BOP onto Pro since he now has to show the bible to be true. He could of been ok if he simply said "I dont know".

Websites
Con repeatedly has shown websites that are .edu and .org and even a .gov websites. While Pro has shown websites from the Creation institute and AIG which are biased.

Micro Vs Macro Evolution
Pro has brought up many times this defense against some of Con's claims, However Con has shown that both Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing only Macro takes a lot longer. If Pro supports Micro Evolution then he then supports Macro Evolution. What Pro should of done is gone after the dating methods to show that fossils aren't as old as we can tell but he didn't. Pro also brings up "Kinds" but fails to show what he means by "kind".

Credibility
Pro says that just because science says something does not mean it is true even though a vast majority support it. However he also shows some quotes from "scientists" who question evolution so that makes some of his arguments invalid. Also Con shows how you can become scientific and lists the scientific method and shows how evolution has passed the test and creation can not simply because it is a preconceived view.

Mutations
Pro says that there is no such thing and "beneficial mutations" and shows a experiment confirming such, However Con then debunks this claim and shows evidence for it with how microbes evolve to resit antibiotics, and they survive because a small fraction of them have mutations in there genes that made them survive. and those who survived got to pass there gens to the next generation.

Winner = Con
The Reason why is because after building up a strong proof for evolution and Pro who did do good in trying to debunk it just couldn't tear down the argument Con made in the first round and thus since he held his BOP Con wins.

A no brainer debate. no way anybody can say that there's NO scientific evidence for Evolution. there's a ton of it. I say this as a Christian and believer in God. I just think that God instigated the process. I think I could win a debate where I was Pro on this wording: "Atheists cannot Disprove that God does not drive the Evolutionary process." Put the burden of proof on the Atheists. I've challenged a particular atheist here to that very topic and he was chicken. but I wont name any names.Im above that. Huh Danger Mouse? LOL God Bless.

Do you believe in the God of the Bible?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:33:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.

That would simply be fallaciously shifting the burden. If you think God drives and began the evolution process then you should back that claim instead of putting your own burden off on others to disprove. If a disbeliever cannot disprove your claim it does not make your belief reasonable.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 8:42:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 5:33:00 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.

That would simply be fallaciously shifting the burden. If you think God drives and began the evolution process then you should back that claim instead of putting your own burden off on others to disprove. If a disbeliever cannot disprove your claim it does not make your belief reasonable.

While that's true Skep, unfortunately, these kinds of propositions also exhibit a serious category error. Consider: science is the accountable, transparent, empirical study of natural events. It works by appealing to evidence for events that anyone, regardless of belief, can recognise as true and false. Thus science can talk about anything, as long as it can include everyone in the conversation.

However, religious mythology is the appeal to obscure, unaccountable causes for which no empirical evidence may exist. It has such difficulty establishing objective meaning and evidence for its own beliefs that the adherents of major faiths can split into thousands of competing sects and doctrines, never to reconcile ideas again.

So exactly how is one to even recognise or demonstrate those causes, much less disprove them?

Here's a counter-proposition: why should an obscure, vague, unaccountable, circular, evasive, unprovable, unfalsifiable, subjective, unconstructive proposition even be recognised as legitimate in rational discourse?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:42:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/14/2015 5:33:00 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.

That would simply be fallaciously shifting the burden. If you think God drives and began the evolution process then you should back that claim instead of putting your own burden off on others to disprove. If a disbeliever cannot disprove your claim it does not make your belief reasonable.

While that's true Skep, unfortunately, these kinds of propositions also exhibit a serious category error. Consider: science is the accountable, transparent, empirical study of natural events. It works by appealing to evidence for events that anyone, regardless of belief, can recognise as true and false. Thus science can talk about anything, as long as it can include everyone in the conversation.

However, religious mythology is the appeal to obscure, unaccountable causes for which no empirical evidence may exist. It has such difficulty establishing objective meaning and evidence for its own beliefs that the adherents of major faiths can split into thousands of competing sects and doctrines, never to reconcile ideas again.

So exactly how is one to even recognise or demonstrate those causes, much less disprove them?

Here's a counter-proposition: why should an obscure, vague, unaccountable, circular, evasive, unprovable, unfalsifiable, subjective, unconstructive proposition even be recognised as legitimate in rational discourse?

Because their ignorance deserves just as much respect as the knowledge gained over decades of study by people who have dedicated their lives to learning about the subject. <sarcasm>
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:42:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/14/2015 5:33:00 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.

That would simply be fallaciously shifting the burden. If you think God drives and began the evolution process then you should back that claim instead of putting your own burden off on others to disprove. If a disbeliever cannot disprove your claim it does not make your belief reasonable.

While that's true Skep, unfortunately, these kinds of propositions also exhibit a serious category error. Consider: science is the accountable, transparent, empirical study of natural events. It works by appealing to evidence for events that anyone, regardless of belief, can recognise as true and false. Thus science can talk about anything, as long as it can include everyone in the conversation.

However, religious mythology is the appeal to obscure, unaccountable causes for which no empirical evidence may exist. It has such difficulty establishing objective meaning and evidence for its own beliefs that the adherents of major faiths can split into thousands of competing sects and doctrines, never to reconcile ideas again.

So exactly how is one to even recognise or demonstrate those causes, much less disprove them?

Exactly, and I feel Red knows this and is employing these dishonest tactics against his opposition. But then again, knowing he is a former atheist perhaps I give him too much credit and he is merely ignorant.

Here's a counter-proposition: why should an obscure, vague, unaccountable, circular, evasive, unprovable, unfalsifiable, subjective, unconstructive proposition even be recognised as legitimate in rational discourse?

It never should, but unfortunately it is a way of life here in the States! Just consider the question asked to presidential candidates in the Republican primary - 'I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first." If you haven't already seen it, I'm sure you can imagine there were no scoffs at the question.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 7:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 5:33:00 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.

That would simply be fallaciously shifting the burden. If you think God drives and began the evolution process then you should back that claim instead of putting your own burden off on others to disprove. If a disbeliever cannot disprove your claim it does not make your belief reasonable.

not really. If I create a debate I can pose whatever challenge question I want. last I checked there are no rules here on DDO preventing that. again, "Atheists: prove to us that God did NOT spark the beginning of Life for the Evolutionary Process."
wanna go? just say SO! LOL. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:58:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 7:24:44 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 5:33:00 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/14/2015 2:37:32 AM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
oops. I meant to say my debate claim would be: "Atheists cannot prove that God does NOT drive and begin the Evolution process." I did a double negative in my first wording in previous post.

That would simply be fallaciously shifting the burden. If you think God drives and began the evolution process then you should back that claim instead of putting your own burden off on others to disprove. If a disbeliever cannot disprove your claim it does not make your belief reasonable.

not really. If I create a debate I can pose whatever challenge question I want. last I checked there are no rules here on DDO preventing that. again, "Atheists: prove to us that God did NOT spark the beginning of Life for the Evolutionary Process."
wanna go? just say SO! LOL. God Bless.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten