Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Christfollower
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hi-mynameisjonas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creation vs evolution

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 120614
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Christfollower

Pro

I am for creation. What do you think? Provide me with some evidence for evolution.
hi-mynameisjonas

Con

There is a vast amount of evidence that evolution exists on earth, And is the reason and cause of different biological existence such as animals and humans.

Evidence in animals can be seen in the development of fossils over time. For example when examining whale fossils over millions of years, An incremental development in structure can be seen. Charles Darwin studied this with great detail.

In humans this same development can be seen as well. However more fascinating is the fact that we can find social evolutions such as when we started using certain tools, When we started farming, And so on.

In addition to this incremental development, We share many genetics with animals and plants, Meaning we very likely all date back to quite possibly original organisms of life.
Debate Round No. 1
Christfollower

Pro

F for Fossils
A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, Complex creatures are concerned.
There are people that collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies"trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, Trilobites had hard shells, All the basic organs, And complex eyes like those of flies, With hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, And in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.
As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, Up to a foot long, With a distinctive head and tail, A body made up of several parts, And a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5, 000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], Not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is "the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas, " according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give "no satisfactory answer" to why no fossils had been discovered. Today"s scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, Pp. 26-27).
Question: If, After almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world"s continents, No previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, How then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
It"s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, You would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, Maintaining that time, Water, Sand, Minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, But he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!
Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, It is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves " All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, No fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find "the" missing link, As if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind, 1970, Pp. 60-62).
The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with my next point.
A for Assumption
When there is no real evidence, Evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.
If evolution were true, Then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, Dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, But we do not see any changes into other species. And, As mentioned, We see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.
In Darwin"s landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, With uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could, " "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.
Evolution is still called a theory"a possible explanation or assumption"because it is not testable according to the scientific method, As this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it"and in many respects runs counter to it.
L for Life
The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.
You"ve probably heard the famous question: Which came first, The chicken or the egg? It"s a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, Yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?
To complicate matters even more, The chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.
Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, There is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, Which produced the first fertilized egg"and the rest is history.
S for Symbiosis
When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, It"s called a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, And how did the bees exist without these plants?
Again, Atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, The answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.
E for Engineering
All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, A bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it"s only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, Which means they do many complex things at the same time, Something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.
One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, Which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, Housing for birds, Roots to limit erosion, Fruit and seeds to eat, Is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. " How could something so complex arise from a random, Undirected evolutionary process?
Again, You need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.
Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true"and we didn"t even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution"and do take time to read our Creator"s great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.
hi-mynameisjonas

Con

hi-mynameisjonas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Christfollower

Pro

I have nothing to say. My opponent has clearly forfeited.
hi-mynameisjonas

Con

hi-mynameisjonas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Christfollower

Pro

another forfeit.
hi-mynameisjonas

Con

hi-mynameisjonas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Christfollower

Pro

I rest my case
hi-mynameisjonas

Con

hi-mynameisjonas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
I will post one of my next arguments now. This may be on one of the debate rounds.
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, The sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, Which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away. Which is funny because over time, You lose genetic information, Rather than gain it.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, Nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, The evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, Adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), And therefore, Retained by the selection process. For some reason, However, The idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people"until it is examined quantitatively, That is!

https://www. Icr. Org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@Christfollower

Most of the "mysteries" you've outlined in your argument are fairly common creationist talking points. Of course they aren't actually mysteries, And the answers to these questions are equally both complete and common. You need but google them.
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@K_Michael_Tolman

Scientists refuse to consider directed development because they are scientists, And directed development has no basis in science.

Regardless of all your concerns about evolution, Everything is fairly well explained by scientific concepts. And that makes it infinitely more plausible than directed development
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
@schutz bro, Give me a break. I have written multiple essays regarding this topic. I have also made a compilation of articles in an essay that I use for debates like this. Just cause i forget 1 or 2 sources you blow up on me like this. I copied the wrong sheet of sources. If you would like to see the essay for those sources let me know.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Sonofcharl
@Schmutz

You appear to have delusions of grandeur.
Posted by Schmutz 3 years ago
Schmutz
https://www. Ucg. Org/vertical-thought/prove-evolution-is-false-even-without-the-bible

@Christfollower literally copied and pasted their argument from this website, And than provided sources that seemed related to them. The last thing they cited is an article debunking a creation myth and it explicitly states that mutation can lead to evolution of a new species.

Christfollower, If you really want to have an actual debate you shouldn't do shi`4; like this. Your trying to make yourself seem knowledgeable and convince people of things when you are plagiarizing and giving fake sources. If you are going continue pulling this shi`4;, Please do us a favor and delete your account on this website.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
My sources for round 1
Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. 2003. The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution. Acts & Facts. 32 (11).
(Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, Pp. 26-27).
(Byron Nelson, After Its Kind, 1970, Pp. 60-62).
"Biogenesis. " Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Feb. 2019, En. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Biogenesis.
Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Zondervan, 1973, 276 pp. )
Science and Creation, Master Books, Pp. 161-201)
Wistar Institute Symposium, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, 140 pp. )
https://www. Newscientist. Com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
K_Michael_Tolman
Evolution seems to make sense- until you look closer.

Ever heard of acacia trees? According to science, These trees have developed a survival technique where when one tree starts to be eaten, It releases a type of tannin that inhibits digestion, Discouraging any consumers. But the truly incredible part takes place when the trees downwind also begin producing tannins as a hormonal response to tannins in the air. This inter-special communication between PLANTS is utterly ridiculous from an evolutionary standpoint. No amount of chance mutations could produce this mechanism. It is dependent not only on the acacia tree beginning to produce tannins but also for the tree to develop an entirely new hormone in response.
A chance mutation with this result is about as likely as the original development of life in the first place. Over and again, These infinitesimal chances occur. According to solid logistics, The development of humans and the other species on our planet as a freak accident so small as to be negligible. And yet, Scientists refuse to consider the more plausible idea (it has been reinvented hundreds of times by different cultures) of a directed development.
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Sonofcharl
@ Vortex117

Pretty basic evolutionary rhetoric. Probably self sourced rather than out sourced.
Credible and incredible sources all come from a similar place anyway.

Logic says: A creation event followed by an ongoing period of evolution.
Posted by Vortex117 3 years ago
Vortex117
Hello, Hi-mynameisjonas, Would you mind providing some credible sources to back up your argument? I am currently quite skeptical of some of the statements you have made, And I would like to see where you are getting your information from. That would be very much appreciated.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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