The Instigator
FollowerofChrist1955
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is more credible than Creationism revisited after 2 yrs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/7/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 661 times Debate No: 112491
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Initiated by Matt8800 -Premise is that the evidence for Evolution is strong while the evidence for Creationism is insufficient.

It was proven that nothing could have been further from Reality!

The inability for Matt8800, or anyone else to answer the question of - Actually PRODUCING the living, breathing animal created by evolutionists during experimentation: That proved the primordial ooze theory as TRUE, never surfaced!


That this answer REMAINS unanswered to this day, proves that Science was never able to replicate a creature crawling out of the primordial ooze. Thus it did not actually occur!

This is evidence that LIFE did not FORM as believed by all evolutionary Scienists, from Darwin to the Scientists of the PRESENT day!

Unfortunately you simply cannot CLAIM evolving when you cannot SHOW the beginning of ANIMAL LIFE at all!

You cannot profess evolution from creatures you cannot prove formed from each other at all, because no experiment replicated a created creature observable OUTSIDE a microscope. What was viewed through the microscope REMAINS microscopic today, never having formed into a living creature at all.

So the belief that Life started when a creature crawled out of the primordial ooze billions of years ago ... is a proven LIE! By SCIENTIFIC experimentation. Everything from genetics, to every known evolutionary thought was predicated on the Origin of Life Theory which has now been proven FALSE by science itself. No method done by any known Scientist HAS created a living creature from nothing to Life, that breaths air, and reproduces as all Living creatures reproduce ... by egg!

ev"o"lu"tion
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection
2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

None of the experiments of Science gradually developed into a living Creature! merely multicellular, unicellular, bacterial forms.

genetics are genes, not animal Life so their not evidence of Origin of Life either.

Science has literally nothing that doesn't demonstrate by experimentation that Darwins belief of The Origins of Life as being started by a creature crawling out of the primordial ooze ... was FALSE! Then or even TODAY!

Definition of true
1: truthful
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description
(2) : conformable to an essential reality
(3) : fully realized
c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension of
d : consistent true to character
4: legitimate, rightful
b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate
: narrow, strict in the truest sense

Thus CREATIONISM IS More CREDIBLE ... in Fact The TRUE beginning of Life!

Pro

Your argument shows a deep lack of understanding about the theory of Evolution.

The Primordial Soup Theory (I will assume thats what you are referring to when you say "primordial ooze," is completely separate from evolution, but you are incorrect that scientists have never been able to recreate the condition of early earth to experiment whether any amino acids (the building blocks of life, if you like) could have been formed. The famous Miller"Urey experiment showed that in the conditions suggested by the Primordial Soup Theory, 20 amino acids were produced in an experiment, proving that under early-earth conditions, life could have begun to have formed.

"Unfortunately you simply cannot CLAIM evolving when you cannot SHOW the beginning of ANIMAL LIFE at all!"
This statement is simply untrue. As I previously stated, evolution has little to do with the "origin of life," just how life today came to be.

"because no experiment replicated a created creature observable OUTSIDE a microscope." I am not quite sure what experiments you are referring to here, but If a microscopic creature is experimented on, it is logical that it will stay microscopic throughout the experiment, and not grow in size to become visible. I'm not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make here.

"No method done by any known Scientist HAS created a living creature from nothing to Life, that breaths air, and reproduces as all Living creatures reproduce ... by egg!" This is because we simply don't have the technology to create living matter that functions exactly like a living creature today. The process itself took millions of years for single celled organisms to become multicellular, and we obviously don't have millions of years to experiment on organisms. You seem to be claiming that evolution is false because we cannot turn dead matter into an animal in an experiment, but this would not even be evolution if we were to do that experiment.

"Thus CREATIONISM IS More CREDIBLE ... in Fact The TRUE beginning of Life!" You fail to fulfil your burden of proof in this statement. What makes creationism more credible? All of what we know about earth contradicts creationism. Evolution is widely accepted as fact by most people due to the insurmountable amount of evidence for it, hence the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic at best and we know that the earth is for sure older that 10,000 years old. Which part of creation makes it more credible than scientific theories that each have a huge amount of factual evidence backing them?
Debate Round No. 1
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Lies? you honestly have no idea of evolution? Then Why did you accept this debate? Did you NOT read the description of Evolution?


you mistakenly state- "Your argument shows a deep lack of understanding about the theory of Evolution."


You are honestly attempting to interject a KNOWN LIE, easily proven false by suggesting the dictionary itself IS MISTAKEN on WHAT EVOLUTION actually IS?


ev"o"lu"tion

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection
2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.



To which I remind you we all own dictionaries, and scientific literature citing Darwin as Founder of the Theory! Yet YOU have the temerity to suggest, DAWIN himself didn't know what EVOLUTION WAS?


https://www.livescience.com...

This clearly shows Darwin AS the father of Evolution! Notice- the part that states DEVELOPED the theory of Evolution.
Darwin himself penned The Origins of Life.

Evolution: Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring. Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.

http://www.pbs.org...


That Science was incapable of creating an organism capable of producing Living offspring which is intoduced into the KNOWN populace of Living creatures ON EARTH, is the death nell of evolution. It simply didn't happen.

Thus scientists attempted to suggest "adaption as Evolution" This to was easily proven false as the species REMAIN fully intact. Incapable of becoming a totally separate species at all. Obviously you failed to read the last debate where Matt8800, also attempted to LIE!

The evidence is well documented ... every species on EARTH remains withing it's species. absolutely NO evidence of a NEW SPECIES being created by a different species. Example; Birds remain Birds, Lizards remain lizards, Dogs remain Dogs, Cats remain cats and so forth and so on!

You have 0 proof in support of your opening statement whatsoever.

IF your going to CLAIM the dictionary and Darwin Himself is WRONG on what EVOLUTION IS ... that is a bold statement: Best you understand what adaption IS, before CLAIMING evolution is NOT merely adaption. note definition:

Definition of adaptation
1 : something that is adapted
  • a new adaptation of an old recipe
; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form
  • a screen adaptation of a novel
2 : the act or process of adapting
  • a process undergoing adaptation
: the state of being adapted
  • adaptation to changing circumstances
3 : adjustment to environmental conditions: such as
a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation
b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment : a heritable physical or behavioral trait that serves a specific function and improves an organism's fitness or survival



This is what you CLAIM is Evolution and it is Clear it is NOT! You attempt to steal the defintion of Adaption and place it in the definition of EVOLUTION. You have neither the right nor authority to alter definitions to salvage your delusional views.

Thus let us begin gain shall we? Re-read my opening. Refresh yourself ON EVOLUTION, then comeback with FACTS, not delusional easily proven LIES opinions. Perhaps you should read The Origins of Life FROM Darwin himself? you seriously don't appear to know WHAT Evolution actually IS?

Some helpful hints I will provide you;




Oh and when you FINISH your game? REALIZE that Scientific experiments PROVED that NONE of this actually HAPPENED!
Science couldn't create ANYTHING that HAS CRAWLED out of soup, mud or OOZE ... EVER!

So Life didn't BEGIN at all according to Science itself! Yet here we are? But according to Hard Scientific .. LIFE (living animals and Humans) should NOT exist at all!

Thus the only viable explanation ... well you can read MY intro again, since you clearly didn't or simply IGNORED the debate opening statement entirely and wanting to just reoffer lies and OPINIONS already proven LIES.

YOU CAN'T SHOW Life beginning at all. So we EVOLVED FROM NOTHING, and continue to evolve from that same nothing? is just to stupid to even consider AS an argument.

I mean that's a Bill and Teds excellent adventure sort of argument isn't it?

WE don't exist but we evolve anyway? DUH!


Try a Little harder BUD! at the very least DON'T TRY Telling us the Dictionnary and Darwin is WRONG on WHAT evolution IS according to this or that wacko.

it still works out to the Basic unanswerable question?

IF we couldn't possibly EXIST because science HAS proven we did not FORM from Bacteria, unicellular or multicellular organisms, or by amino-acids, or by protiens or y ANY METHOD, Life failed to reach the Alive and living stage of walking about on Earth. Then we shouldn't even exist .... BUT WE DO EVOLVE ANYWAY?

Did you hit your head?


Pro

Your response to my argument fails to address any of my points and instead quotes the dictionary (which is completely pointless as I said nothing about the dictionary definition at all, nearly your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolution), and a few websites, which prove nothing.
"This clearly shows Darwin AS the father of Evolution! Notice- the part that states DEVELOPED the theory of Evolution.
Darwin himself penned The Origins of Life."
You remind us all that Darwin is the father of evolution, something which I'm sure most people already know, and tell us what his book was titled, but you seem to miss the point here. We are not discussing Darwin, but the theory which he came up with, which itself has nothing to do with the origin of life. The title is more fitting as "The Origins of Life [as we know it}." His book title does not support your argument in any way.

"That Science was incapable of creating an organism capable of producing Living offspring which is intoduced into the KNOWN populace of Living creatures ON EARTH, is the death nell of evolution. It simply didn't happen."
This statement shows you to be scientifically illiterate and is a subtle personal incredulity fallacy. You very clearly don't understand the theory of evolution. At all. Whether scientists can create a creature in a lab or not, that has no bearing on the reality of evolution. Evolution is the extremely gradual change of a species, with microevolution being within a species and macroevolution being outside of a species. However, a basic level of research will tell you that these are essentially the same thing, and I will respond to your next 2 'paragraphs' together.

I would like to see the evidence that you talk about here, because all the evidence and fossil records prove that species have macro evolved, and as a result of microevolution and gradual changes to the genome over multiple generations can no longer breed their previous species. I would like to use a modern example of macro evolution. The rabbit.
More specifically, Alaska rabbits and Florida rabbits.
These two breeds of rabbit have been bread by humans, and the genome has changed to the extent that they cannot breed with one another. This means that they are different species. (To clear up any confusion, species - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.) The fact that they are different species is proof that macro evolution has occurred.
As a side note, what you mentioned as adaption is essentially microevolution, where a group of animals change to suit their environment.
"IF your going to CLAIM the dictionary and Darwin Himself is WRONG on what EVOLUTION IS ... that is a bold statement." This statement truly confuses me, as not once did I say that Darwin or the dictionary were wrong. I merely said that you lack understanding, which, from your response, has become increasingly clear.

"This is what you CLAIM is Evolution and it is Clear it is NOT! You attempt to steal the defintion of Adaption and place it in the definition of EVOLUTION." Whether this is true or not, it has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. I would also like to point out now your aggressive word choice and tone, using the capital letters for no apparent reason and the verb "steal," makes you come across as aggressive, not to mention the further ad hominem that appears throughout the debate.

"Science couldn't create ANYTHING that HAS CRAWLED out of soup, mud or OOZE ... EVER!." ...

and?

"YOU CAN'T SHOW Life beginning at all. So we EVOLVED FROM NOTHING, and continue to evolve from that same nothing? is just to stupid to even consider AS an argument."
Regardless of however life began, evolution happened. If you were scientifically literate enough to look at the evidence or do enough research to become even a tiny bit educated on the Theory of Evolution, you would know this. I would like to point out, however, that you have completely disregarded what I said about the Primordial Soup Theory, which is very likely to be true, as I alluded to in my first argument.

"Try a Little harder BUD! at the very least DON'T TRY Telling us the Dictionnary and Darwin is WRONG on WHAT evolution IS according to this or that wacko." I didn't.

"Did you hit your head?" No but thanks for the concern nontheless.
Debate Round No. 2
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

I checked your profile. My apologies I was unaware of your inexperience. You should not accept debates as your ...experience, is all head knowledge and 0 experience. Still it does benefit you to read such debates to learn how uninformed Society as a whole actually is.

The Theory of Evolution was the brainchild of Charles darwin who professed belief that we ... all things not just Humans, evolved from a single source ... The Primordial ooze postulation.

It is here, in the Sciences and experimentations of today, that This Belief was forever shattered as false in its entirety. IF you were to search the Experiments, one by one looking not at the how but the result, you will see that , not a single experiment ever, Let me say that once again ...ever proved that it was possible to create LIFE from nothing to a Living Breathing walking across the Earth animal. ever. This of course you can research yourself.

Darwin and Humanity believed it is here Lifes origins began. Course their totally wrong! For example Those Building Blocks of Life you copied from some false science book? wrong! Know why?

The BUILDING BLOCKS? They didn't produce real LIFE! So IF those building blocks did not produce a living creature that walks across the earth ... how can they be called building blocks at all? So your ...building blocks? Didn't and Can't BUILD actual LIFE ever?
The same holds true for the bactera, the organisims, unicellular and multicellular alike. The proteins, everything Sciences experiments produced, produced NO LIVING CREATURES at all, that walks anywhere!

This is undesputed!
Science can say whatever they want ... they just cannot PROVE IT! By actual Living Creature!

So now to the basic question that killed EVOLUTION. IF NO CREATURE LIFE was EVER created , then Neither was it created 4 billions of years ago! Nothing CRAWLED out of anything ... NO creature was ever produced, then or NOW! So LIFE? Animal and Human Life should not and cannot exist on the earth by ANY scientific reason, naturally! Thus that we ARE HERE is a Miracle as great as the parting of The Red Sea!, The Creation of the Universe. All of it ... MUST have been done by SUPERNATURAL MEANS!


Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...



It IS the ONLY reasonable outcome. As Holmes adequately states~ "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter HOW improbable, MUST be the TRUTH!" ~ Arthur Conan Doyle


Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...



Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...



The impossible ... that LIFE was created by any natural method! Evidence- Bacteria, organisms, amino-acids unicellular, Multicellular, Microbes ... NONE of them CAN nor HAVE created creature LIFE!

FACT- LIFE can only come from egg/Ova. There is no other possible way for an offspring to make its way into the ANIMAL/Human Life, without this. Everything else? Remains IN THE MICROSCOPIC WORLD. (and WE- all of US- do NOT live there! Neither can THEY LIVE HERE among US!) It's just that simple.

Evolution was created by scientists, who STOLE the definition of Adaptation, attempting to use it as evolution. Species who adapt to their environment? Sound familiar? You believe Humanity and Humanity is never RIGHT! Can't be ... because they waver with their emotions where truth can never be altered by anything. It is Truth NOW and will continue to BE TRUTH in 1000 years from Now. Farewell young one. Sorry you didn't read the opening statements that already told you EVOLUTION IS FALSE ... PROVEABLY, by anyone who simply LOOKS at the tests!


I of course offer the readers our sincerest apologies. and will reissue the debate hoping for ADULT acceptance! You may await the new challenge, or follow the rest of this one ... but as is obvious the child already killed the debate with nonsense.


Definition:
ev"o"lu"tion
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection
2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Definition:


di·ver·si·fy



verb



verb: diversify; 3rd person present: diversifies; past tense: diversified; past participle: diversified; gerund or present participle: diversifying



make or become more diverse or varied.

This very much implies a diversification from one LIFE to another Life form.

Definition:


ad·ap·ta·tion







noun



noun: adaptation; plural noun: adaptations



the action or process of adapting or being adapted.


Biology



a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.




synonyms:alteration, modification, redesign, remodeling, revamping, reworking, reconstruction, conversionMore


Definition:
o·pin·ion


noun



noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions



a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Definition;



fact
noun



noun: fact; plural noun: facts



a thing that is indisputably the case.

Definition:





a·mi·no ac·id







noun


Biochemistry



noun: amino acid; plural noun: amino acids; modifier noun: amino-acid














      1. a simple organic compound containing both a carboxyl (—COOH) and an amino (—NH2) group.



Pro stated Fact- 20 amino acids were produced


FACT: 20 amino -acids which REMAIN amino-acids is not diversification did not become a Bacteria, nor an organism. It remains to this very day amino- acids! Thus not evolution as defined by description

. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified/The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Evidence - not a single organsim formed into completely different and SEPARATE life form at all. Even in the bacterial world.


Okay follow me here?
To DIVERSIFY, you MUST CHANGE to something wholly DIFFERENT?

The amino-acid REMAINED amino-acid, The oragnism REMAINED an organism, The bacteria ... REMAINED a Bacteria, the Gene REMAINED a gene.

Now lets LOOK again at The definition your running scared of, shall we?

which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


NOPE did't happen after any amount of Billions of Years- So evolution? FALSE BY HARD SCIENCE FACT!

Nice try though?

Pro

"I checked your profile. My apologies I was unaware of your inexperience. You should not accept debates as your ...experience, is all head knowledge and 0 experience. Still it does benefit you to read such debates to learn how uninformed Society as a whole actually is."
I don't see how my experience and age affects the validity of my arguments. This is an obvious attempt to discredit my points with ad hominem, and leads you nowhere in this debate.

"The Theory of Evolution was the brainchild of Charles darwin who professed belief that we ... all things not just Humans, evolved from a single source ... The Primordial ooze postulation."
You make a large mistake in this statement. The "Primordial ooze," more commonly known as the Primordial soup theory, was introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin in 1924, Charles Darwin died in 1888. The Primordial Soup theory is a separate theory to evolution. One explains how life began, the other explains how life became how we know it today.

"It is here, in the Sciences and experimentations of today, that This Belief was forever shattered as false in its entirety. IF you were to search the Experiments, one by one looking not at the how but the result, you will see that , not a single experiment ever, Let me say that once again ...ever proved that it was possible to create LIFE from nothing to a Living Breathing walking across the Earth animal. ever. This of course you can research yourself."
I have addressed this in previous arguments, but you still seem to have the same misunderstanding. Evolution takes TIME. Time that we cannot replicate in a lab. If scientists could leave amino acids for millions of years and then observe them, we would expect to see some change, but we can't expect cells in a Petri dish to turn into a human in a week, something which you obviously expect to be used to 'prove' evolution " something which has already happened.

"The BUILDING BLOCKS? They didn't produce real LIFE! So IF those building blocks did not produce a living creature that walks across the earth ... how can they be called building blocks at all? So your ...building blocks? Didn't and Can't BUILD actual LIFE ever?"
What? Amino acids are the building blocks of life, and they did eventually code for living creatures. After MILLIONS of years, not a matter of days.

"This is undesputed! Science can say whatever they want ... they just cannot PROVE IT! By actual Living Creature!"
The fossil record is pretty solid proof of evolution, as we see changes by generations of a species.

"hus that we ARE HERE is a Miracle as great as the parting of The Red Sea!, The Creation of the Universe. All of it ... MUST have been done by SUPERNATURAL MEANS!" Even if we were to accept your argument in its entirety, this is one hell of a leap. I suppose this creation must have been by the very specific God that you believe in? This is a subtle black and white fallacy too, as there are other alternative theories of how life came about, on both sides.

"It IS the ONLY reasonable outcome. As Holmes adequately states~ "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter HOW improbable, MUST be the TRUTH!""
The problem here, of course, is that you have failed to eliminate evolution, using only faulty arguments and faulty logic.

"You believe Humanity and Humanity is never RIGHT!"
You do realise the irony of that statement? Or are you not human?

"I of course offer the readers our sincerest apologies. and will reissue the debate hoping for ADULT acceptance! You may await the new challenge, or follow the rest of this one ... but as is obvious the child already killed the debate with nonsense."
More ad hominem? Age has nothing to do with the validity of my points, and this would have been better left out of the debate.

"NOPE did't happen after any amount of Billions of Years- So evolution? FALSE BY HARD SCIENCE FACT!"
You just simply made this claim, after focusing your whole argument on how we cannot create creatures in a lab. You can easily research this, but I will repeat, the fossil record is clear evidence of evolution over millions of years. Evolution is hard scientific fact.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Blubberface;
No I'm afraid not! Because now your just plain lying.

you see Evolution is defined as- descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

This of Course has been proven FALSE as earlier explained! There is NO NEW SPECIES created from an existing species. They remain the SAME species. Feline, equine, etc .... there is NO evidence of NEW species from pre-existing species as the species remain incapable of crossbreeding outside their species .. IE, dog impregnating cat, human impregnating monkey, pig, impregnating Horse!

Thus to suggest you believe God created Life, then ignoring the scriptures conclusions for sciences point of view, is possible, but not wise.

Still from a Christian prospective ... your Salvation would not be in danger based on what you believe as salvation is a Gift, thus not based on your performance!

You would have trouble in maturing in God, by reason of embracing the World, when God directed you specifically not to be OF the World.

John 17:14
I have given them Your word and the world has hated them; for they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

in your case those words would not be true for you, therefore, you would remain stagnant in Christian growth, and in all likelihood would not recieve rewards for your conduct while on earth as defined by
1 Corinthians 3:15
If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved--even though only as one escaping through the flames.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Blubberface
Evolution isn't in opposition to creationism, you can believe in both of them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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