The Instigator
izagm
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
croweupc
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 951 times Debate No: 120462
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

izagm

Pro

As a Creationist I believe in 'Microevolution', But not 'Macroevolution'.

Let's break that down.

Microevolution is the changing of species. (EX. = Galapagos Finches)
Macroevolution is the changing of kinds. (EX. = Ape to a Human)

There is evidence for Microevolution, And anyone saying otherwise would need to research a lot more.

Now for Macroevolution.

I'm going to ask you to make a rose.
Can you do it?
Of course not.
You cannot make something out of nothing.
It's like the Mona Lisa just appeared, And didn't have a painter.
Some people will claim it is because they do not have millions of years to do so.
No one on earth is millions of years old, So how could they have seen apes turning into humans? What proof is there for that?

Lastly, Evolutionists claim there was a big bang. What proof is there? Where did the star dust from the big bang come from?

This is the topic I want to debate. Please refrain from using Microevolution as an example, Because that is not the topic at hand. Please be respectful, And not rude or mocking. Thank you.
croweupc

Con

I believe Evolution is a fact, And that it has met its burden of proof.

I will define terms also: Oxford Dictionary online

Microevolution: "Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, Especially over a short period. "

Macroevolution: "Major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. "

I agree with you on microevolution, Assuming you mean the same thing. We can study changes made within species, Such as dogs. I have a small 5lb Yorkie Poo. She would not survive in the wild, Which is why we don"t see Yorkie Poo"s naturally occurring in the wild. We even figured out how to breed certain characteristics into a dog, Hence why there is a bulldog.

I know you asked not to use Microevolution as an example, But ultimately that"s all Macroevolution is. Greydon Square put it like this:

"First of all, Microevolution been proven
In the same way that sound waves let you listen to music
And macroevolution is the system of change
At or above the level of the species inflicted with change
That's microevolution on a grand scale we can't even word
Because our life span's too short to observe"

This short debate will not let me explain in any detail why evolution is true, But I hope that I can at least help you think about this topic a little deeper than before. I used to be a Creationist myself. After reading Jerry Coyne"s "Why Evolution is True", I changed my mind. The evidence is there, We just have to look at it.

Evolution seeks to understand how organisms change overtime from simple to the more complex. I believe in Evolution, But I do not believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang seeks to understand biogenesis. The beginning of everything. Evolution is observational, With explanitory power. I will not be defending the Big Bang, And by the way, I agree with your follow up questions about this subject. I will also 100% echo that something cannot come from nothing. That, In my opinion, Would be absurd.

Lastly, I need to know exactly what you will be defending. This should not just be a case of proving Evolution wrong, But proving Creation is true, And better than the alternative. This is my intent anyway, To prove Evolution is better than the alternative.

I am looking forward to a respectful and productive talk.
Debate Round No. 1
izagm

Pro

In your quote from Greydon Square, You wrote: "Because our lifespan's too short to observe". This is 100% true. Our life span is too short to observe evolution, Therefore, What facts do we have to prove they are true?

To become clearer on your view, Do you believe God used evolution, Or that evolution came from nothing?

You said: "I will also 100% echo that something cannot come from nothing. " If you believe this, I would like to understand more how you think evolution came to be.

I am proving Creation is true, And to back up the facts :)

I too, Look forward to our respectful and engaging talk. :)
croweupc

Con

Definitions:
Evolution: Genetic change in populations, Often producing changes in observable traits of organisms over time.

Macroevolution: "Major" evolutionary change, Usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, Or from early reptiles to birds, Would be considered macroevolution.

Microevolution: "Minor" evolutionary change, Such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Natural Selection: The nonrandom, Differential reproduction of alleles from one generation to the next. This usually results from the carriers of some alleles being better able to survive or reproduce in their environments than the carriers of alternative alleles.

Coyne, Jerry A. . Why Evolution Is True (p. 248-249). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long period of time with greater deviation (to the point of speciation) due to drifts in population treats over the generations.

Natural Selection is the big driving force of Evolution. Natural Selection, As defined above, Is not random, Meaning that humans will produce humans with slight modifications over time. In other words, Monkeys will not give birth to a human and vice-versa. According to "https://biologydictionary. Net/natural-selection/", There are five different types of selection. Jerry Coyne goes into great detail on some of these types, And has a whole chapter dedicated to sexual selection. The five types are: Stabilizing selection, Directional selection, Diversifying selection, Sexual selection, And predator-prey selection. The last two on this list are more obvious. Predator-prey selection is why I said in my opening remarks that a Yorkie Poo wouldn't"t survive in the wild. She would be food for some other animal for sure. We humans used sexual selection to make breeds like Yorkie Poo"s. We breed the treats we want. This is how deviations begin, And with enough time, You start to get speciation.

Speciation is not an overnight process. It happens over hundreds, Or maybe even thousands of generations. This concept seems to escape some people, But it is pivotal in getting the process. We know through radio-active dating that the Earth is very old. We know through the fossil records that the Earth has been populated for a very long time. Fossil fuel should also be noted as an example of an old Earth. It is not a stretch to say that there is enough time to create changes and the diversity of life we see on planet Earth today. Evolution seeks to understand the process of change in populations over time. Evolution however says nothing about the start, Or bio-genesis of everything. Proving Evolution does not disprove God. There are many deeply religious people who believe in Evolution. One professor wrote a book called "Random Designer" where he argues that God created all of life through the process of Evolution.

I am agnostic on that point, But wish only to clarify that I do not believe that Evolution and Creation is a dichotomy in and of itself. So I now wish to ask a very important question. What exactly do you mean when you say Creation? And what method did you use to come to the conclusion that it is real and Evolution is not?

As for your questions, My belief in God is very different from mainstream religious thinking and would take up to much time to explain. All I will say is that I do not believe things just came into being. To me, Evolution is a process just like electromagnetism, Gravity, And other natural processes that govern our Universe. The more we learn about the process, The more sense we make of the reality of life. Methodology is very important to me, So I am very curious to know what exactly you believe and why.
Debate Round No. 2
izagm

Pro

I want to address the reason you turned from evolutionist to Creationist first, Then address what you said in your last argument.

Jerry A. Coyne also said:

"I"m also surprised at how certain many biblical scholars are that Jesus existed (Bart Ehrman, To give a prominent example). "*
and
"Yet although I am the first to admit that I have no formal training in Jesusology, I think I"ve read enough to know that there is no credible extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus"s existence, And that arguments can be made that Jesus was a purely mythological figure, Perhaps derived from earlier such figures, Who gradually attained 'facthood. ' As a scientist, I"ll say that I don"t regard the evidence that Jesus was a real person as particularly strong"certainly not strong enough to draw nearly all biblical scholars to that view. It"s almost as if adopting mythicism brands you as an overly strident atheist, One lacking "respect" for religion. There"s an onus against mythicism that can"t be explained by the strength of evidence against that view. "**

For a scholar of such a high ambitions, He sure doesn't have his facts straight. Nor has he done the research.

Here are 2 proofs Jesus existed:

Josephus wrote:
"About this time there lived Jesus, A wise man, If indeed one ought to call him a man. For he. . . Wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate. . . Condemned him to be crucified, Those who had. . . Come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared. . . Restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians. . . Has. . . Not disappeared. "***

Tacticus wrote:
"Nero fastened the guilt. . . On a class hated for their abominations, Called Christians by the populace. Christus, From whom the name had its origin, Suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of. . . Pontius Pilatus, And a most mischievous superstition, Thus checked for the moment, Again broke out not only in Judaea, The first source of the evil, But even in Rome. . . . "****

I do not want to get off topic here, So I will end the quotes and proofs there, Although they go on. If Jerry A. Coyne had done some research, He would have seen that he was mistaken. If he got such a big thing WRONG, How do we know what he has gotten RIGHT?

Now I will address your last argument.

I agree with your definitions of Macroevolution and Microevolution.

However, I do not see proofs of Macroevolution. It happens over such a long period of time, No one is able to witness it.
"There is no known observable process in which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code. "*****

Your yorkie poo, (which I bet is adorable), Has been bred to be that way. But can animals, And plants if we are talking about all life, Become smarter with natrual selection?

If apes became human, How would they gain the smarts?

If apes turned into humans, Why are there still apes?

Why haven't humans turned into an even more evolved species if we have been on this earth for millions of years?

How did stardust turn into, Well, Everything?

Where did the stardust come from?

As you can see there are too many unanswered questions.
In your next argument, I would love if you could try and answer each one of them.

As in Creation, I believe the God of the Holy Bible created the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Actual 24 hour days. No evolution.

I could ask the same about evolution. Evolution is a religion in my mind, People either believe in evolution, Or they don't. But in reality, It is just an elaborate story that sounds so good people believe it. They want to believe something, They don't want to just have a sad existence with no real meaning, And scientists believe this, So why shouldn't they? They jump into it without actually seeing the facts (there aren't any recognizable facts that anyone has brought up to me), They just read emotion-filled books, Articles and watch documentaries. They have the feeling, They have what people want--a purpose, And for everything to be explained. But is it actually? People use lots of words, But when broken down, They are not saying actual facts, Just they way they feel, What they believe, And what they wish was true.

Hopefully this did not sound condescending, That was not my purpose. Looking forward to your response :)

* Jerry A. Coyne (Why Evolution Is True)
** Jerry A. Coyne (Why Evolution Is True)
*** Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64, Cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.
****Tacitus, Annals 15. 44, Cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
croweupc

Con

Bart Ehrman is an authority on the subject of Theology, And I would definitely suggest you read at least one of his books. I don"t think it will change your mind, But it will challenge you for sure. As far as Jerry Coyne, He is a biologist, Not a theologian. Gordon Ramsay is a chef, But I wouldn"t go to him for anger management therapy. It sounds to me like you have never read anything other than Christian Apologists. Correct me if I"m wrong.

Bart Ehrman is not a mythicist, But David Fitzgerald is. I have read both of these authors, And they both make very compelling arguments. I am not a mythicist personally, But I can understand their argument. The two sources you mention are not contemporary historians. Josephus, Whom I"ve read, Is a late 1st century historian, And Tacticus is 2nd century. For a man with such a great ministry and having done so many miracles, Nobody during the life of Jesus ever mentions him.

Jerry Coyne is not alone in his assessments. Every major branch of science agrees with him. Biology, Micro-biology, Marine-biology, Astro-physics, Astronomy, Paleontology, Archeology, Physics, Chemistry, And basically every other branch of Earth science agrees. To take this one step further, Countries such as India, China, Russia, Australia, And every other major nation has scientists who agree in their respective fields of study that Evolution is a fact. This is not just some conspiracy theory. Evolutionary theory is just like the theory of gravity, It"s a matter of fact. The only people who don"t believe in Evolution are those who have religious beliefs that contradict with Evolution or those who have not studied it for themselves.

As for macroevolution, You said "there is no known observable process in which new genetic information can be added. " In a way you are right, But in a way you are wrong. We cannot see it in real time like you wish to see it, But we can see it in the fossil record. The fossil record through geological layers was published by Charles Lyell in his 1830 book "Principles of Geology. " By the way, Charles Lyell was a Christian believer. He excepted that the Earth was old, Because all of the evidence suggested it.

I will now attempt to answer your questions.

"Can animals, And plants if we are talking about all life, Become smarter with natural selection? "

I believe the simple answer here is yes. There is a whole branch of science, Evolutionary Psycology, That deals with this very topic. It explains why we would adapt large brains for survival, And also tries to understand our behaviour as social creatures and some of our tendencies. This subject is too big for me to tackle here.

"If apes became human, How would they gain the smarts? "

We are by definition Great Apes. Apes didn"t become humans, Apes are apes.

"If apes turned into humans, Why are there still apes? "

As I stated before, Apes did not become humans. This is a misunderstanding of Evolution by many people who have yet to study it. This was an argument I myself would make just a couple of years ago. Turns out I was wrong. Apes and humans have what is called a common ancestor. Our common ancestor was a large enough group that they could split off into different tribes and evolve separately. Different evolutionary pressures, Such as food, Predators, Weather, Environmental, Created changes in the population to better help them adapt to their local environment. The weak, Unsuccessful, And less intelligent would die off leaving only those who were able to adapt, Called the survival of the fittest.

"Why haven't humans turned into an even more evolved species if we have been on this earth for millions of years? "

According to the best scientific evidence, Humans have only been around in our current form for maybe 100, 000 to 200, 000 years. We are a recent phenomenon. It is possible we will continue to get smarter with time.

"How did stardust turn into, Well, Everything? "

This is part of the Big Bang Theory and has no real impact on Evolution. Great question, But doesn"t prove or disprove anything about Evolution.

"Where did the stardust come from? "

Again, Big Bang!

You said there are too many unanswered questions. Shouldn"t the best answer be I don"t know. You have questions about the Theory of Evolution, I get that. But how did questions about Evolution land you on "God did it in seven days"?

How did God do it?
When did God do it?
How do you know God did it?
How do you know God did it in seven 24 hour days?
Where did the stuff God used come from?
Where did God come from?

You are taking the mystery of the Universe and its origins and appealing to an even greater mystery, A being you define as God which lives outside space-time. There are a lot of unanswered questions in life. Christianity seems to only provide you with answers, But no real explanation.

Evolution has explanations, Has observations, Has testable evidence. The same methods of science used to create airplanes, Cell phones, Space stations, Satellites, Televisions, And the very computers or tablets we are typing on is the exact same as those used by scientists in their respective fields of study.

How do you know what you believe is true?
Debate Round No. 3
izagm

Pro

I would refute all of your arguments, But I feel like you are ignoring what I have said.

So far you have not presented me with one proof on why evolution is true.

Please do so.
croweupc

Con

I have spent a lot of time outlining why I believe Evolution to be true. I cannot convince someone who has no interest in being convinced, I can only present the evidence and allow them to decide.

Here is what I know about your position:
1. You believe in Microevolution
2. You do not believe in Macroevolution
3. God created the Universe in six 24 hour days
4. On the seventh day He rested

Did I miss anything?

What evidence would it take for you to be convinced that Evolution is true?

Do you have the same level of scrutiny for the beliefs you currently hold?

In other words, Do you have more evidence that your claim is true than I do that mine is true?

You have yet to give a defense of your position, But are demanding that I give you more. This is unfair.
Debate Round No. 4
izagm

Pro

I am sorry if you feel I am being unfair. I really am.

It just seems like there is a lot of emotion in what you are saying, And you haven"t presented any solid facts. I am all for hearing your side and listening to your argument, But so far I feel you have none.

You are correct about my position. There is more to my faith than that, Though, And I would be willing to discuss that :)

As for evidence, I just need FACTS. I need solid proven, Seen facts. I do not believe you can give these to me, And therefore do not believe I will be convinced.

There is one question I have asked almost every time, And it has been avoided-how can you prove evolution is true, If no one has ever witnessed macro evolution?
croweupc

Con

I was a creationist for the better part of 30 years. I know your position better than you think. I used to ask the same questions, But not to people like myself who have studied the topic of evolution until about three years ago. When I found someone who understood evolution, It became much harder to attack. I still had questions, So I sought out the answers for myself.

I cannot prove to you macroevolution in the way that you ask because definitionally it is impossible. Macroevolution is the process of change over time, Usually very large amounts of time. Microevolution is a proof of macroevolution. The age of the Earth is also testimony of this process. Geologists have studied the Earth"s layers extensively. There is plenty of evidence if you really wish to learn. My suggestion, Do not limit yourself to just material you agree with. If you live in an ego-chamber where only your beliefs are reinforced, You will never believe anything other than what you do right now.

Sorry if you feel like my responses are emotional. I am passionate about truth, But I promise this is not just an emotional response. I have read several books, Both sides of the subject, Including intelligent design theory. Evolution is the only one backed by all branches of science, In every country. Why is that important to me?

All branches of science uses the scientific method:
1. Purpose/Question
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Experiment
5. Data Analysis
6. Conclusion

This method has produced result like non other. This method is where all of our technologies come from. It is a method used to understand the world around us. This same method is used to understand evolution. I bring up different countries because of their different belief systems. The United States is predominantly Christian. This is not true for other Countries. China is more Buddhist, India is more Hindu. No matter the religious influences, They all agree Evolution using the scientific method is correct.

Science is a method of learning the truth about reality. What method are you using to determine Creationism is correct? If you examine your reasons for believing this, You will see that you do not have good reasons for believing it. There are thousands of books on the subject of Evolution and its proofs. Please read one! Do not except what other Apologist have to say about it without researching it for yourself.

You do realize that no one was there when God created the Earth? The difference between my position and yours is that mine has the fossil record as evidence for my proposition. I hope you never stop learning. This debate has been interesting and fun. Thanks
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by croweupc 2 years ago
croweupc
@izagm
I am new to the site and had no idea you were just 14 years old. Probably a good thing for you because I would not have debated you had I known. This explains a lot, I was wondering why your responses were vague. When debating, You need to explain your position clearly and defend your position. In this debate, You are just trying to prove my position wrong or possibly cast doubt on my position. This is okay, You should challenge your opponent, But not at the expense of proving your own position. I also want to commend your bravery debating a sensitive matter such as this. Must people lose their cool, Especially when their deeply held beliefs are attacked.
Posted by Speedrace 2 years ago
Speedrace
@WrickItRalph

Lol that would be so cooooooooooool
Posted by Sonofcharl 2 years ago
Sonofcharl
A creation event followed by a period of ongoing evolution.
Call it God or call it a Big Bang or call it anything you want. That's easy.
The harder explanation is the bit before the creation event.
Posted by WrickItRalph 2 years ago
WrickItRalph
My biggest question concerning evolution is whether or not all species come from a common ancestor or it there are multiple starting points. I understand how evolution works, But I don't know how the trees start to look when they regress closer to the most being organisms. I wish I could rent a panel of scientists and ask any question I want for several hours, Lol.
Posted by WrickItRalph 2 years ago
WrickItRalph
this should be an interesting debate.
Posted by omar2345 2 years ago
omar2345
@izagm

"Microevolution is as easy as explaining different breeds of dogs"
Evidence would only help your case which is why I said to have evidence.
Posted by izagm 2 years ago
izagm
@omar2345 oh.
Posted by izagm 2 years ago
izagm
@omar2345, Besides, Microevolution is as easy as explaining different breeds of dogs.
Posted by omar2345 2 years ago
omar2345
@izagm

It is too late someone accepted the debate.
Posted by izagm 2 years ago
izagm
I do not see it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.