CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
46
Creation Evolution
Debate Score:80
Arguments:70
Total Votes:82
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Creation (34)
 
 Evolution (36)

Debate Creator

gocreation(62) pic



This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.

Challenge Debate: Creation vs Evolution


gocreation(62)

Creation

Side Score: 34
VS.
Cartman(18192)

Evolution

Side Score: 46
1 point

explain to me why are there petrified trees running through multiple layers

if the layers are millions of years old,

won't the tree rot and fall down

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

explain to me why are there petrified trees running through multiple layers

Trees live for many many years. Species can come into existence and go extinct in the lifetime of a tree.

if the layers are millions of years old,

No, not necessarily. There are many many layers that represent a different amount of time.

won't the tree rot and fall down

It doesn't rot as long as long as it is alive.

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

Then you are saying that the geologic column is wrong or incorrect

Side: Creation
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

but these tree never fell down

so either they were buried in the flood

or was slowly buried over many years by sediment

these trees are standing up

their trunks are not very big

Side: Creation
1 point

......................................................................................................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Kent Hovind does not discuss what evolution actually teaches. His videos are not evidence against evolution.

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

......................................................................

.
Side: Creation
1 point

.....................................................................................................................

.
Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

An argument from complexity is ridiculous. He is taking a DNA strand that has evolved over millions of years and tried to claim that the chances of it coming about are slim. But, the real probability to consider is the chance of any DNA molecule existing. Evolution states that it can work with any life. If you have any DNA, life can proliferate. A specific sequence is inconsequential.

First, he points out that DNA is too complicated to design. Slips it by you to make you think it is an argument against evolution. Very sneaky.

Second, evolution says nothing about the number of chromosomes being the key to progress. You would never know that listening to Hovind.

Third, Hovind tells you to your face that he is making strawman arguments. He is poisoning the well.

Nothing Hovind teaches has anything to do with evolution. He is a fraud.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Give one actual evidence of Evolution. ...............................................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Fossils show transitions of species over time that is described in evolution.

Side: Evolution
1 point

First tell me your version of Evolution. Then we debate.

......................................................................................................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Darwinian

Side: Evolution
1 point

Charles Darwin once wrote to his good friend Joseph Hooker about the possibility of life arising spontaneously from “some warm little pond.”

During his day, some scientists still believed in “spontaneous generation,” the idea that life can arise from nonlife—which was Darwin's hope. Later, the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur decisively refuted the idea, and 150 years of observation and experimentation have confirmed these results.

It turns out life is supremely more complex than Darwin could have ever imagined.

Several decades ago, the famous Miller-Urey experiment was supposed to shed light on the origins of life. By running a mixture of gases through heat and electricity, they produced a tarlike substance that formed some amino acids. But we now know that the experiment was rigged, since oxygen, which was excluded, would have ruined the results. And scientists have concluded that oxygen was present when life first appeared.

Even with this rigged experiment, however, there was no assembly of amino acids so as to reach the next level of the building blocks of life—the enormously complex proteins, which themselves must be precisely integrated into sophisticated systems.

While the Miller-Urey experiment yielded the artificial chemical production of some crude organic building blocks, no building came of it. How do you get the loose blocks to form an elegant and functional house—with all the blocks in the right places?

This comparable house would also include a foundation, walls, doors, windows, roof, electrical power and a sewer system. Additionally, it needs to create a variety of materials besides the blocks that have to be precisely formed and fitted, and then it must have the ability to reproduce itself.

We are referring, of course, to a living cell, the staggering complexity of which defies the imagination. Indeed, the most primitive cell is far more complex than even the most sophisticated of houses, as pointed out in the next section of this article.

When scientists do the math, Darwinism just doesn't add up to anything probable or possible.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the late British astronomer and mathematician who was knighted for his scientific accomplishments, observed about the Miller-Urey experiment: “The…building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method…

“A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe” ( The Intelligent Universe, 1983, pp. 18-19, emphasis added throughout).

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Charles Darwin once wrote to his good friend Joseph Hooker about the possibility of life arising spontaneously from “some warm little pond.”

He was speculating about abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't cover that part.

During his day, some scientists still believed in “spontaneous generation,” the idea that life can arise from nonlife—which was Darwin's hope. Later, the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur decisively refuted the idea, and 150 years of observation and experimentation have confirmed these results.

False. The Miller Urey experiment proves that life has the possibility of arising from non life.

It turns out life is supremely more complex than Darwin could have ever imagined.

This statement is just dumb.

Several decades ago, the famous Miller-Urey experiment was supposed to shed light on the origins of life. By running a mixture of gases through heat and electricity, they produced a tarlike substance that formed some amino acids. But we now know that the experiment was rigged, since oxygen, which was excluded, would have ruined the results. And scientists have concluded that oxygen was present when life first appeared.

The experiment proved that life came from non life. It is a proof of concept.

Even with this rigged experiment, however, there was no assembly of amino acids so as to reach the next level of the building blocks of life—the enormously complex proteins, which themselves must be precisely integrated into sophisticated systems.

The building blocks of life had millions of years to form. The experiment can't come close to lasting long enough for that.

While the Miller-Urey experiment yielded the artificial chemical production of some crude organic building blocks, no building came of it. How do you get the loose blocks to form an elegant and functional house—with all the blocks in the right places?

Millions of years of the building blocks coming together.

When scientists do the math, Darwinism just doesn't add up to anything probable or possible.

You have described abiogenesis, not Darwinism.

“A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe” ( The Intelligent Universe, 1983, pp. 18-19, emphasis added throughout).

No one is suggesting that is how it happened. The more likely "scenario" is a whirlwind that comes in every day and blows the parts, but the parts actually stick to each other if they are supposed to be together and the whirlwind causes them to come together. Eventually you get bigger and bigger pieces each day and the whirlwind can do this every day for a million years. What is the probability then?

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought.

As Darwin pondered apart from his evolution theory. You are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.

Congratulations. Even you recognize you aren't talking about evolution.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Explain this to me.

Why is time so essential to evolution?

Give me one accurate way to measure the age of the earth other than carbon dating since we are disputing that.

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Why is time so essential to evolution?

Why is time essential to the concept of small changes over TIME? Time is essential because changes happen when the next generation is born. Also, these changes aren't guaranteed every time a new thing is born. There need to be many generations for changes that evolution acts upon to happen.

Give me one accurate way to measure the age of the earth other than carbon dating since we are disputing that.

Uranium dating. Compared data from Earth, the moon, and meteorites.

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

The main point at issue is fractionation and its relationship to U/Pb and Th/Pb dating. Jon Covey cited some references about this, and it will take a lot of work to understand what is going on from a creationist viewpoint. But this is another factor that could be causing trouble for radiometric dating. If there is a proof that this could not be so, then I have missed it. I would not want to use a scale that might be right and might be wrong. This looks like the situation with U/Pb and Th/Pb dating so far. Another issue is selective reporting, and also an uncertainty as to how often U/Pb and Th/Pb dates agree with the expected ages of their geologic periods. And I'm curious to see how discordia relate to the possibility of fractionation -- I did look into them at one time. But this point is sufficiently complicated that I can't see the implications right away. In general, when an area is so complicated that I can just barely understand it, then there may be problems with the area that are more complicated still. But my inclination is to think that the same kinds of mixing processes that produce isochrons can also produce discordia.

Furthermore, if there are special circumstances that invalidate the method, then this raises questions about the method in general. It's been an eye opener to me to see all the processes that lead to segregation of different minerals in the magma. We have gold appearing pure at times, silver pure at times, etc., and no one says this is due to radiometric decay. The geological processes at work have a tremendous ability to separate different kinds of elements and minerals. And yet we expect that uranium-lead ratios are determined by radiometric decay alone (or at least sometimes)!

There are so many complicated phenomena to consider like this that it calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into question.

We haven't even considered the fact that uranium is highly water soluble and lead is not, which could make the dates too old, too. Another factor to consider.

We now have so many things that can make radiometric dating go wrong, and isochrons don't remedy the situation at all, that I think the weight of evidence of radiometric dating is nullified.

I really feel ``bullish'' about the creationist model now. Evolution has always been in trouble. I now have a good explanation for where the flood water came from and where it went, based on water trapped inside the crust (however the planet formed or was created). And now radiometric dating has had its foundation removed from under it. I suspect that a number of geologists now realize the implications of what they know about the lead and uranium content of subducted oceanic plate versus crustal material and the mechanics of magma solidification. What it means is that radiometric dates have no necessary relation to true ages! (For this I'm mainly concerned with the geologic column of Cambrian and above.) At least, there are so many variables to consider that the relationship between radiometric ages and true ages is too complicated to disentangle at present, isochrons or no isochrons.

We have seen many ways in which radiometric dates can be affected by what is going on in the magma. I think this is really the weak spot of radiometric dating. It takes a long time to get to the bottom of things, and I think we have finally hit it.

Still, the creationist task is not finished by proposing all of these mechanisms for invalidating radiometric dating. We can explain many dates away, but a question creationists need to face is which is the best explanation of the data. Can we find evidence that shows that an explanation of radiometric dates in terms of a young geologic column is more plausible than an explanation in terms of an old geologic column? I'm not speaking of evidences based on erosion or the lack of it, or other kinds of evidence, but rather on evidences relating to the radiometric dates and the concentrations of isotopes themselves.

Side: Creation
1 point

Now give an argument about Creation.

..............................................................

I would like to hear what you have to say.

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

I already pointed out that there is no evidence from Creation. You decided to talk about Carbon dating.

The biggest problem with Creation is that it really isn't a formed story. Are we talking about young Earth Creation? Are we talking about Intelligent Design? Are we talking about God starting everything and being mostly hands off after that? Creation is so unsupported there isn't a unified narrative for it.

Side: Evolution
1 point

The Biblical Flood was real. The flood created the layers of strata. Its called hydrologic sorting.

Why do we have fossilized closed clams on mountains?

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

The Biblical Flood was real.

Highly unlikely.

The flood created the layers of strata. Its called hydrologic sorting.

Any experiments to prove this is possible?

Why do we have fossilized closed clams on mountains?

Plate tectonics. The tops of mountains used to be at the bottom of the ocean.

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

This is hydrologic sorting.

........................................

.
Side: Creation
1 point

Clams open when they die.

......................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Clearly not true if they are fossilized that way.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Which came first, the DNA or the Protein?

......................................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Doesn't matter. That is before evolution started.

Side: Evolution
1 point

What do you mean?

I asked which one came first.

Evolution is supposed to answer the question.

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

No. Evolution does not address abiogenesis. The formation of DNA, protein, and the first cells is not described under evolution.

Side: Evolution
1 point

How do you date the rocks in the strata?

..................................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

This had already been covered. Where is your evidence for creation?

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

The sun is shrinking at a constant rate at about five feet an hour.

That means it used to be bigger.

If the sun is 20 million years old, it would have engulfed the earth!

Side: Creation
1 point

How do you date the fossils in the strata?

...............................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

This had already been covered. Where is your evidence for creation?

Side: Evolution
1 point

How can you explain symbiosis relationships?

.................................

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Parasites makes more sense through evolution than creation. How do you explain parasites. How could God create a species that causes pain to the species it gets nutrients from before sin existed?

For symbiosis, in evolution the 2 beings start as independentand aren't as efficient. Both things are trying to do the same process to get nutrients but neither is optimal. Each being gets better at specializing at one part of the process. Over time one can't live without the other because half the process is being done by the other.

Side: Evolution
1 point

How could God create a species that causes pain to the species it gets nutrients from before sin existed?

Your question is basically the same thing as why did God create creatures that eat meat.

According to the Bible, God gave all creatures herbs and plants to eat.

For parasites, they probably survived from nutrients from plants.

http://www.wrvmuseum.org/journal/Newsletters PDF/March2012%20newsletter.pdf

.
Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Your question is basically the same thing as why did God create creatures that eat meat.

No it isn't, but that doesn't make sense either.

According to the Bible, God gave all creatures herbs and plants to eat.

That's impossible for parasites.

For parasites, they probably survived from nutrients from plants.

It then switched to the inside of animals? How?

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

Some creation zoologists suggest that free-living creatures (in other words, non-parasites) became parasitic after the Fall. This is hardly far-fetched. As some evolutionists recently stated, “Free-living species could become parasitic without substantial anatomical or physiological changes.”4 So the step from a beautiful role to a parasitic one after the Fall could have been a small one.

Side: Creation
2 points

There is absolutely no evidence of Creation. Creation isn't even a well formed story. There isn't even a fully defined narrative that can be discussed.

On the other hand, there is evidence from many different scientific studies that verifies evolution is true.

Side: Evolution
gocreation(62) Disputed
1 point

It will take 10 thousand years for the decay of carbon 14 to reached equilibrium.

Why has the earth not reached equilibrium yet?

Side: Creation
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

New carbon 14 is produced every day. It is recirculated in the air and taken in by living things. When the thing dies it no longer takes in new carbon and it can start to decay at a detectable rate.

Side: Evolution
1 point

Still waiting to see evidence for creation. Where is the evidence of creation.

Side: Evolution