The Instigator
Eugenious
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
killshot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Law of Bio-genesis is Sound

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: 2/3/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 120137
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Eugenious

Pro

The Law of Bio-genesis says "All kinds of creatures reproduce after their own kind. This is obvious in nature, And i believe that the con side cannot possibly be defended. If you believe differently, Please accept the challenge, And good luck!
-Eugenious
killshot

Con

Before we start this debate I want to clear up some terms with you. We might not disagree afterall.

I agree that all "complex" organisms come from other complex organisms, As far as we know, And an organism cannot birth something that is less complex than itself. That is biogenesis as I understand it, And if that is all you are saying, We agree.

I am getting the impression that you are saying evolution is not possible. Is that your argument or am I misrepresenting you? If this is not what you're arguing, Then disregard this. I am not trying to straw man you. Only get you to clarify your position better.

What is a kind? Can you provide me with a definition and an example. If you are referring to a clade, Then I understand what you mean. If you're not, Please explain.
Debate Round No. 1
Eugenious

Pro

What I am saying exactly is that, Essentially, A penguin isn't going to give birth to a cockatoo. A kind will not give birth to another kind.

I do believe that evolution is wrong, But that isn't what I'm trying to debate here. All I want you to prove is that the Law itself is not sound.

Now, To define "kind. " I think it can best be described with an example. Birds are all one "kind. " Snakes are all one "kind. " Lizards are all one "kind. " Do you see the pattern here? For example, If evolution is true, Then at some point in history a "kind" of animal had to generate another "kind" of animal.

Is what I'm saying more clear now? If not, Please let me know. But if it is clear, Then let the debate commence.
Back to you!
killshot

Con

Yes, You were very clear this time around - thank you! :)

You said, "What I am saying exactly is that, Essentially, A penguin isn't going to give birth to a cockatoo. A kind will not give birth to another kind. "

You're absolutely correct and we agree. If this was all you were saying in your original declaration, Then I apologize - I misunderstood what you meant. I read your comments and evolution and I thought you were saying evolution is not possible due to bio-genesis.

That being said, I wrote some rebuttals to your proposition that evolution is wrong:

Evolution is change over time. There is never a point in evolution where a species will instantly give birth to another species, That is not how speciation works. Over time, Changes will accumulate in species and often times species become geographically separated due to various natural reasons. The separated species will continue to "change" over time slowly as the generations progress. Eventually those separated species have had enough isolated changes that they are no longer able to breed with one another if they were reunited. In this instance, Speciation has occurred. This is not the only way speciation can occur, But it's one example and it's easy to illustrate.

Your example of kinds is not compatible with science, And here is why. If God created birds, For example, Birds would all fall under a single ancestor. God would have had to have created a single original bird, Or at least an original bird kind, Even if he made several of them simultaneously. All modern birds would have descended sharing the same common ancestor of the original "bird" archetype. That archetype would be the highest level for that "kind" and it would not share a common ancestor with anything else.

This is simply not the case. Using genome sequencing science has shown all life shares common ancestors in their phylogeny. For example, You and I both share DNA with trees, And worms, And all other known forms of life. The DNA was compounded over millions of years of evolution and you can see how it slowly built itself into what it is today. To see more on this, Google the phylogeny tree and genome projects.

The evidence does not stop there. Morphology studies the anatomical changes of phylogeny overtime. Fossils clearly show the transitions from various species.

It doesn't stop there. Numerous forms of radiometric dating also verify and corroborate the fossil and geological records.

It doesn't stop there. Geology also corroborates all the other evidence. Fossils are always found in chronological order in the geological strata. The layers of strata also map to the expected timelines for that species via the radiometric dating methods.

There is additional evidence for evolution such as vestigial developments. These are the biological "left overs" as a byproduct of evolution.

In addition to all this, Evolution is demonstrable. It has been tested, Documented and recorded in the lab in and controlled groups. It is fact.
Debate Round No. 2
Eugenious

Pro

Ok. First off, I said that I wasn't debating evolution right here. Your job here is to negate the resolution. If you wish to have a strictly creation/evolution debate, I would be happy to. But for now, Please just negate the resolution.
killshot

Con

I was very clear already, I thought.

This is what I wrote:
You're absolutely correct and we agree. If this was all you were saying in your original declaration, Then I apologize - I misunderstood what you meant. I read your comments and evolution and I thought you were saying evolution is not possible due to bio-genesis.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Something I want to make clear in this debate is that i do believe that the Law of BioGenesis disproves evolution, But that isn't what we are arguing about here. My opponent misunderstood me when he accepted this debate, So if you're reading this, Please don't vote on this debate. It wasn't actually being negated by the con side. Not as an insult or anything, I just meant that he did't understand what i meant.
Thanks!
-Eugenious
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
"In addition to all this, Evolution is demonstrable. It has been tested, Documented and recorded in the lab in and controlled groups. It is fact. " Could you give us an example of this happening in real life? When has this been observed?
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
It does not and I'm happy to prove it to you.
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
The law of biogenesis disproves evolution
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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