CreateDebate


Debate Info

114
300
Creationism Evolutionism
Debate Score:414
Arguments:216
Total Votes:529
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Creationism (94)
 
 Evolutionism (118)

Debate Creator

bellmar89(5) pic



Creationism vs. Evolutionism

The argument is whether humans evolved because there was a Supreme Being (God) who made man in His own image or man emerged from apes.

Creationism

Side Score: 114
VS.

Evolutionism

Side Score: 300

although it isnt proven i agree with creationism i mean where did the monkeys come from

Side: creationism
Joshuajones(16) Clarified
1 point

Yes, i love this. God the supreme being created everything both living and non living. In the Bible, Genesis 1. We were made to understand how the history of creation goes. Is better we read the Bible and get the fact than to go all about speaking fallacies.

Side: Creationism
1 point

God the supreme being created everything both living and non living.

You have no evidence for such an assertion.

In the Bible, Genesis 1.

The bible is not scientific evidence any more than spider man comics are proof of spider man.

We were made to understand how the history of creation goes

We were made to understand the story of Genesis? No we weren't.

Is better we read the Bible and get the fact than to go all about speaking fallacies.

You have no way of knowing that the bible contains only facts. In fact, there are numerous inconsistencies, falsehoods, and contradictions in the bible. No one is speaking fallacies here. You are the one relying on a book 2000 years old to have all the answers you will ever need.

Side: Evolutionism

Creationism through Evolutionism : )

Side: creationism
-1 points

"God made man in his own image"

"this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" - upright, not a monkey running along with his fists on the ground, the man is UPRIGHT, his two legs on the ground, walking with his hands at his sides. "Inventions" - well, I have to say that evolution certainly fits into that category.

Side: creationism
imrigone(761) Disputed
5 points

""this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" - upright, not a monkey running along with his fists on the ground, the man is UPRIGHT, his two legs on the ground, walking with his hands at his sides."

Since the very heart of the concept is that organisms transform from one form to another, this is perfectly in keeping with evolution.

""Inventions" - well, I have to say that evolution certainly fits into that category."

Evolution is, like any other concept in investigative science, an observation (actually a vast family of observations), not an invention.

Side: evolutionism
Billie(790) Disputed
3 points

"Since the very heart of the concept is that organisms transform from one form to another, this is perfectly in keeping with evolution"

Wrong. God made man upright and apes/monkeys may stand upright but do not walk upright, they tend to run/walk on all fours with their hands fisted. Why would God make man and tell us that He made man upright then somehow the men evolve into apes then back to men? It makes no sense and, lets face it, that didn't happen. Why also would Moses say that God made "man" if it was an ape that God made? Furthermore, Eve spoke to the serpent and spoke words to Adam that Moses tells us she said, wouldn't an ape be unable to speak our language? Thus, you are wrong in saying that it is "perfectly in keeping with evolution". Finally, we are told that God made man in His image; I very much doubt - and I speak for the majority of the thousands of Christians that there are on this planet - God is a big hairy ape that walks on all fours.

"Evolution is, like any other concept in investigative science, an observation (actually a vast family of observations), not an invention."

No offence, but its an invention, just like we are told. And you my friend have fallen for the words of fools.

Side: creationism
ricedaragh(2500) Disputed
4 points

The evolution of man from quadrupedal ape-like animal to today's bi-pedal gait is well documented in fossil evidence, and some of our closest genetic cousins practice bipedal locomotion from time to time so, I'd say you should look up the facts before commenting.

Evolution by natural selection is not an invention, it is a natural force that has been observed in nature and in vitro, it has mountains of evidence both from the fossil record and even more convincingly from molecular data. To deny evolution as fact is to stick one's fingers in one's ears and scream (insert favorite tripe here) over and over again until the nasty scientists stop talking.

Side: evolutionism
Billie(790) Disputed
1 point

Oh yeah? Is that so? Well, as far as I can see it is you who is ramming your fingers so far down your earholes yet the true voices are ringing loud and clear, as they always have done and will. Keep mumbling about your ideas and fantasies but shoving a graph in front of me and expecting me to believe the scrappy handwriting that just by the way fails to produce ACCURATE EVIDENCE is an absolute waste of my time. Something else you should note; there is not "mountains of evidence" to support evolution, but rather mountains of documents that fail to produce accurate evidence for men evolving from big hairy apes. It is not well documented in fossil evidence; if it was I would be convinced that your argument wasn't a pile of crap. I think it is yourself who needs to look up the "facts" because you will find that the "document evidence" that you speak about is in fact a pile of tripe, and the man who invented evolution actually refuted it on his deathbed. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr-I-think-I-know-it-all.

Side: creationism
smithereen(43) Disputed
-1 points

One thing you should note is that nothing is a fact.It's all a bunch of shananigans pulled together by the illuminati to throw us off track.Where I come from,religion is a big thing because we deal with powers beyond mere human comprehension.I go to sleep at night not knowing where I'd be the next day and every day we see different things that show us that there is God.So,believe me when I say,it was evolution spurred on by creation.

Side: creationism
smithereen(43) Disputed
-1 points

One thing you should note is that nothing is a fact.It's all a bunch of shananigans pulled together by the illuminati to throw us off track.Where I come from,religion is a big thing because we deal with powers beyond mere human comprehension.I go to sleep at night not knowing where I'd be the next day and every day we see different things that show us that there is God.So,believe me when I say,it was evolution spurred on by creation.

Side: creationism
smithereen(43) Disputed
-1 points

One thing you should note is that nothing is a fact.It's all a bunch of shananigans pulled together by the illuminati to throw us off track.Where I come from,religion is a big thing because we deal with powers beyond mere human comprehension.I go to sleep at night not knowing where I'd be the next day and every day we see different things that show us that there is God.So,believe me when I say,it was evolution spurred on by creation.

Side: creationism
smithereen(43) Disputed
-1 points

One thing you should note is that nothing is a fact.It's all a bunch of shananigans pulled together by the illuminati to throw us off track.Where I come from,religion is a big thing because we deal with powers beyond mere human comprehension.I go to sleep at night not knowing where I'd be the next day and every day we see different things that show us that there is God.So,believe me when I say,it was evolution spurred on by creation.

Side: creationism
-1 points

The fact is that no actual transition fossils have been found. Even the supposed "missing links" that are touted as the answer to the evolutionary chain are located before any transition forms would have been found in the evolutionary timeline.

Also, consider the principle of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary theory and natural selection posit that biological systems would be efficient but, at the same time, that lifeforms evolved over centuries and millennia. How, then, would a life form begin to develop a new organ or biological system if its first stages were completely useless.

A resource-consuming organ like that would not appear in the life form's offspring.

Side: creationism
ricedaragh(2500) Disputed
2 points

The fact is that no actual transition fossils have been found. Even the supposed "missing links" that are touted as the answer to the evolutionary chain are located before any transition forms would have been found in the evolutionary time line.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

These are just two of many, look as well to living fossils such as platypus which is half reptile, half mammal.

What about whales and dolphins that have vestigial legs, or snakes that have a pelvis, all of these point to evolutionary variation

Also, consider the principle of irreducible complexity. Evolutionary theory and natural selection posit that biological systems would be efficient but, at the same time, that lifeforms evolved over centuries and millennia. How, then, would a life form begin to develop a new organ or biological system if its first stages were completely useless.

What is wrong with 1% of an eye when your competitor has none, there are microorganisms with light sensitive spots, there are flat tubellarians with light sensitive cells in hollows on the front of their bodies that take the light sensitive spot to the next level by giving the perception of direction, there are many more slight variations on this up until the eyes of prey birds. Indeed what is the advantage of cells on one organism that detoxify the system as their function (a rudimentary liver), this would lead to a better capability to consume and therefore propagate the species further, an advantage over their rivals, over time this would become more complex building to what you know as the liver, complex yes but there is no need to invoke a designer.

There is also a good point to made from Darwin's cranes rather than sky hooks analogy, a complex system doesn't necessarily have to always keep all it's parts, something as complex as ATP transcriptase may not always have functioned alone, it may have been part of a much bigger, more easily understandable system that lost over time it's superfluous proteins or structures leaving behind only that which is needed.

Side: evolutionism
2 points

Also, consider the principle of irreducible complexity.

That is not a principle; it's an identified pseudoscience.

How, then, would a life form begin to develop a new organ or biological system if its first stages were completely useless.

I believe the current understanding is that the function of these systems changed over time.

Side: evolutionism
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
0 points

Developing over time requires stage-by-stage alterations. Look at the woodpecker. Its beak, head, and body are all optimized for drilling into trees. It would never have developed these over generations, as it could never have obtained any insects from the trees prior to these anatomical developments.

Side: creationism
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

The fact is that no actual transition fossils have been found. Even the supposed "missing links" that are touted as the answer to the evolutionary chain are located before any transition forms would have been found in the evolutionary timeline.

This statement is nonsensical. A "missing link" by definition is transitional.

What transitional fossils would you be referring to?

Side: evolutionism
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
1 point

I am referring to fossils such as australopithecus afarensis, in addition to fragments that established potential transitional forms including Java man and Peking man.

Side: creationism
-1 points

Whos to say god didnt creat threw evolution? he made the world and people and animals in only a few days but it aalso says that a day in heavin isnt equal to a day on earth. so whos to say that threw those few days we couldnt of evolved and been created that way? Im a die heart Catholic and that is my opion on the argument

Side: creationism

Every time debate comes up like this I refuse to listen to or believing that I came from a monkey.

Side: creationism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
3 points

Technically, evolution just means that you and monkeys share a common ancestor.

Why do you find that so revolting?

Side: evolutionism
0 points

See so it's basically saying that you come from an animal. I don't believe that I share NOTHING with animals whatsoever. Moving along end of discussion because I am what I am.

Side: creationism
1 point

Its completely ridiculous isn't it? They haven't a scrap of true evidence yet they call us blind! throws back head and laughs for hours

Side: creationism
NerdvanaGirl(30) Disputed
2 points

"They haven't a scrap of true evidence yet they call us blind!" The National Academy of Sciences says otherwise, as does every reputable scientific organization in the world. I have to assume that you haven't read any of the plethora of books about evolution, nor studied the findings of paleontologists, microbiologists, etc. The fact that you have to get a new flu shot every year is evidence that evolution occurs - because the virus has evolved. (Viruses have shorter life spans, so it takes less time for significant evolutionary change to emerge in them.) Another great example of evolution in action is ring species. There's also the fact that every fossil is found in accordance with geography and chronological events (that is, they're all in the fossil record when and where we'd expect them to be). Add in the study of genetics, and you've got yourself an incredible array of evidence.

Recommended Reading (concise list): The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins; What Evolution Is, Ernest Mayr; The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins; Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett; Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer; Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences (free and legal pdf is here - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876) )

Supporting Evidence: Berkeley's Evidence For Evolution Page (evolution.berkeley.edu)
Side: evolutionism
-1 points

if there is evolution.. . why do we all keep on worshiping??

maybe this years monkeys should be endagered species caused of evolution...

when i see ( for example : a frog give birth to a cat, ) then i believe in macro-evolution..

* i didn't saw ever since " a monkey give birth to human???

Side: creationism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

This is spam/ a joke right?

If not, please read about what evolution is; you seem very ignorant on the subject.

Side: evolutionism
-2 points
ORementeria(3) Disputed
4 points

You can put those ina table and say to God make me a sandwich.... It wont work.....hehehheheh so easy!

Side: evolutionism
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
4 points

God created this world. Evolution makes no sense. You cant put bread,peanut butter, and jelly on a table and say make me a sandwich...It wont work

And I suppose the inability to create a sandwhich via telepathy somehow deals a crushing blow to the evolutionary argument?

Side: evolutionism
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

"In the beginning god said..." does your criticism more accurately apply towards certain religion's creation stories, and not evolution?

Side: evolutionism
20 points

Evolution is a process... not a belief system. So the term evolutionism doesn't make any sense. It's like creating an ideology based on Evolution.

anyway, we see evolution happening constantly. Very well, we know that Natural Selection works because we see it happen over time. Be it technology from business or personalities from learning, people are adapting and becoming better.

Not to mention that Evolution has a much larger basis than just some scripture. Science isn't some deceptive work. Science is merely the pursuit to gain knowledge about the things around us. Through it, we have discovered the theory of evolution. A brilliant theory that has been met with such hostility from people who are unwilling to accept that maybe things aren't like they always thought it was. From this same mindset, this is why there was so much hostility towards blacks during the Civil Rights movement or why the government rushes to banning any psychoactive substance that becomes really popular.

Side: evolutionism
libsndenial(3) Disputed
0 points

You see natural selection CONSTANTLY. Which isn't denyable. NO ONE HAS SEEN EVOLUTION HAPPEN - the creation of a new species from another. The only constant is indoctrination. If you saw a frog turn into a bird it was because you need to get off the drugs. It takes as much or even more faith to believe evolution. A ton of details must be overlooked or hypothetically proposed. People believe what they believe or feel, some get emotionally tide on both sides. You must be the classic liberal to bring Civil right conversion into this one!

Side: Creationism
1 point

NO ONE HAS SEEN EVOLUTION HAPPEN - the creation of a new species from another.

Actually you're wrong. Speciation has already been observed and documented. Only the willfuly ignorant choose to ignore it.

"Macro evolution has never been observed"

It takes as much or even more faith to believe evolution. A ton of details must be overlooked or hypothetically proposed

It doesn't take any faith to believe in evolution. Belief in evolution is justified through evidence, experimentation, observation, the scientific method, and peer review. No details must be overlooked or hypothetically proposed.

Look up the material you're trying to refute before making a fool out of yourself.

You must be the classic liberal to bring Civil right conversion into this one!

Since when is being "liberal" a bad thing?

Side: Evolutionism
13 points

If we were made in the image of God, please explain the appendix and wisdom teeth. The whole, evolution is guided by god completely dodges ockham's razor, you are making a process more complicated than it needs to be, evolution works fine without god.

Side: evolutionism
libsndenial(3) Disputed
0 points

Nautilus, I am sure you have been indoctrinated by the finest of schools. However, because we see species go through natural selection and stronger traits prevail does not mean we can leap to the conclusion that we came to be from sludge(ie mineral soup). Actually this first step from minerals to protein which all life is created is impossible. It is huge conundrum because cells need oxygen but oxygen destroys, I will let your brilliance research the details… I am not overly religious and have be through this process of indoctrination(elementary-college education) as well, and I find far less conclusive data on evolution. Forget man for a moment, show me bones of a giraffe or rhino that show that it was something else before it was a giraffe or rhino. You can’t. What about all the other species in the world that have “evolved” from some other species. Where are all these freaking bones! Dinosaurs did exist, something wiped them out and species do change and parish. BUT DARWINISM TAKES MORE FAITH THAN ALL RELIGIONS COMBINED. YOUR DISIPLE IS STILL A FLAWED HUMAN!

Side: Creationism
ThePatriot(23) Disputed
2 points

Cells do not need Oxygen. There are many cells that actually die from oxygen exposure. Many members of the kingdoms Monera and Archea and even Animalia do not require oxygen for survival. Extremophiles are Archea organisms that live in environmental extremes, such as inside volcanoes, where life normally wouldn't occur. And water is not oxygen. It has an oxygen atom, but the cell does not rely on the oxygen in water, it relies on the waters properties.

Evolution does not claim life comes from this primordial ooze. That is abiogenesis, separate from evolution. Evolution is just how life changes once it is there, but it does not explain where that life came from. Evolution has been observed. It is fact. We have witnessed it. We have witness countless examples of speciation. But the reason we have never seen an 'amphibian become a reptile' because it takes far too long. We have proof that is did happen, called fossils. Maybe you should look them up.

The giraffe has seven vertebrae in its neck, like most mammals. But its neck is so long. Why is that? Because of mutation and natural selection. And that is all evolution is. Evolution, at its most basic, is the combination of random mutation with non-random natural selection. Both work together.

Dinosaurs still exist. We call them birds. The Velociraptor, a 6ft, 30 lbs predator from Cretaceous Mongolia, resembles a bird in many ways. It had feathers, in fact, it had complex feathers that modern birds utilize for flight. We know this because of the present of quill knobs on its arm. Though not all birds with flight feathers (flamingoes) have them, all birds with quill knobs, have feathers. If it were alive today, we would have called it a bird. A weird looking bird with claws and teeth, but it still superficially looked like a bird. Even Tyrannosaurus' ancestors had feathers. A relative a T. rex, just found recently, was covered in feathers and is the largest feathered animal known to have exist. It is called Yutyrannus, and it was 30ft long and weighed over a ton.

Archaeopteryx is a prime example of a transitional fossil. It has many featured of a reptile. Teeth, claws, a reptile-like hip structure, but it also has many bird-like features, such as complex feathers, a wishbone, etc. Now, technically, all extinct species, except those that have no modern day descendants, are transitional forms, but that is beside the point.

Evolution is one of the most well studied theories. It is one of the most widely supported theories. There is more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution then there is to support the Theory of Gravity.

And to make it clear, a theory is an explanation of a naturally occurring phenomena. We know Gravity exists, but we don't care. We make theories to explain how it works. Same with evolution. We have both directly and indirectly observed Evolution, and we make a theory based on what we observe. That is science. The Theory Evolution had so much evidence that it is unlikely to change in the near future.

Side: Evolutionism
Billie(790) Disputed
-1 points

How does it work fine without God? It doesn't. What process is complicated? The simple matter of God creating the world in six days?

Side: creationism
Nautilus(628) Disputed
11 points

Okay i was refering to the moderate creationist argument that god is the one who is the driving force behind evolution. By complicated i mean that you don't need god to guide evolution because evolution does not need god to guide it, god is an unnecessary hypothesis. But that is a different argument, since you are a biblical literalist, i will have to address that. Okay let's systematically tear down the creation story, yayyyyy. Okay so first off, there was light before there was a sun to make light. And apparently god made plants right away, even though the first fossil records of plants begin at abou 416 million years ago, although you probably think the earth is only 6000 years old. Unfortunately there is a little thing called carbon dating by which you can measure how old something by measuring the amount of decay in a radioactive substance in the rock layer, and it is a legitimate science and accurately predicts ages, such as that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Whether or not you accept it has no bearing on it being true. God apparently never made dinosaurs or every other species that is now extinct. Infact over 95% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct because they were not fit for survival in a changing world, so they died out and other evolved. God on the other hand, made everything just as it is now and all those extinct species never existed, because unfortunately, 4.5 billion year old human remains have not been found. I could go on for hours pointing out all of the discrepancies in the book of Genesis, but I am too lazy to type them all out. We know that the world was not created in 6 days, and your willful ignorance of scientific facts and advancements on our collective knowledge of a species does not change history for you fairytale.

Side: evolutionism
Nick91983(269) Disputed
2 points

Evolution worke fine without god, since god doesnt exist. All of biology came to be, and will persist as it will, entirely independent of any divine intervention (since all of the processes and forms of biology can arise from the basic phyiscal forces of the universe and there is no emperical evidence suggesting anything like miraculous intervention). If one were to say talk about the concept of ontological harmonescence (a secular ordering principle of the universe based on the tendency for types of existence to form and persist [both ontically and ontologically] in existence)

Side: evolutionism
Conro(767) Disputed
0 points

"The simple matter of God creating the world in six days"

O, Irony, how I love thee.

Creating the world was so simple, He simply spoke it into existence.

You're missing the point that to add an extraneous entity to the theory of evolution violates Occam's Razor. If God exists, the theory of evolution would hold true, and evolution would continue without His intervention, guidance, or help. If God doesn't exist, the theory of evolution would still hold true, and evolution would still continue without His intervention, guidance, or help. Therefore, why is discussing God necessary in a discussion of evolution?

Side: evolutionism
9 points

The entire scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) is united behind evolutionary theory, it's the central unifying principle of modern biology. It's also supported by molecular biology, paleontology, virology, and other fields of science. The amount of evidence is incontrovertible - we understand not only the processes of speciation (including concepts like ring species) and the mechanisms of evolution, but we can trace the evolutionary history of countless organisms, including humans, whales, horses, and dogs. We also understand such complex adaptations such as the evolution of the eye (again, just one example). That evolution happens is indisputable - we've seen it proven through the selective breeding (ie artificial selection) of dogs and plants such as cauliflower and bananas, through examples like the Galapagos finches, and through studying viruses (that's why you have to get a flu shot every year - you've created a selective pressure for resistant organisms, which acts as an evolutionary catalyst), among many other examples. Evolution and religion doesn't even HAVE to be in conflict (any more than the heliocentric theory has to be, and that's pretty much generally accepted among Christians, I'd have to say). However, if you want to argue that evolution has to be contradictory of Christianity, so be it - and if you want to do that, evolution is still the clear victor. This is not only because there is actual evidence directly supporting its existence, but also because of the many examples supporting a lack of 'intelligent' design in evolution (such as the pharyngeal nerve, the prostate, and more). In other words, evolution has no foresight, and can create some pretty poorly engineered organisms. (One can still argue that it's compatible with a belief God though, by belief that God merely put the action in motion/created the force of natural selection.)

Side: evolutionism
1 point

Well stated. However, most people of "faith" dont believe that god merely put the universe/life into motion and left it to sort itself out. Most religious belief entails divine intervention

Side: evolutionism
9 points

This one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Side: evolutionism
3 points

This is a very simple matter.

Creationism is illogical and creationists hardly ever know how to answer any given question without saying "it was God's will."

Evolutionism is not 100% correct but at least evolutionists can give logical and fundamented answers to most kinds of questions without saying "it was Athom's will". :D

And btw, creationists always get pissed off when we don't believe their answers, while evolutionists will just probably think they didn't explain it clearly enough. ;)

Simple as that.

Side: evolutionism
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
1 point

Here's a logical answer:

the woodpecker could never developed each of the components that are necessary for it to drill into trees over the evolutionary timeline. Prior to these developments, it could never have hunted for insects in that way.

Side: creationism
Skaruts(195) Disputed
2 points

Just saying that it couldn't do it that way doesn't necessarily imply that it also couldn't do it in some other way, prior to these developments.

A weak reason for refuting - and not necessarily related to - it's development, if that's what you're trying to accomplish. What you said has it's fair ammount of logic, but it's quite superficial.

Side: evolutionism
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
2 points

the woodpecker could never developed each of the components that are necessary for it to drill into trees over the evolutionary timeline. Prior to these developments, it could never have hunted for insects in that way.

A proposed transitional for the Wood pecker would be an ancestor which can peck away at soft wood and catch flying insects.

Problem solved.

What do you want to bet there are already birds like this now?

Side: evolutionism

I believe that science has shown that evolution is the most likely way to create existence. It is possible that a divine being began evolution, but I believe evolution is the correct explanation.

Side: evolutionism
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
1 point

It is a goal of science to pursue the truths that underly our universe. As such, it is important to consider whether evolutionary theory is correct. There are numerous issues with said theory. Consider the fact that the steps required to complete a species' evolution could never exceed the first stages. this is because the first stages would produce superfluous structures, and these would be eliminated in the next generation, as required by natural selection.

Side: creationism
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

It is a goal of science to pursue the truths that underly our universe. As such, it is important to consider whether evolutionary theory is correct. There are numerous issues with said theory. Consider the fact that the steps required to complete a species' evolution could never exceed the first stages. this is because the first stages would produce superfluous structures, and these would be eliminated in the next generation, as required by natural selection.

Ignoring sexual selection, here for a minute...What makes you think the first stage cannot be functional? This is the assumption that you are making, yes? You discount it entirely without explanation. Granted, there will be 1,000 harmful, or benign mutations before there is a beneficial one, but it still happens, and it is all that is required for evolution to work.

Side: evolutionism
2 points

Any particular Living beings can survive only in a certain range of conditions.

The earth has regions and time periods which do not meet such conditions.

Thus life must of either changed in a single generation, been generated by abiogensis, been supernaturally created, or evolved to suit these new conditions. A particular animal changeing its attributes to suit a wide enough change in conditions is rare, at best it may change colors or such but rarely change enough to survive a much warmer climate for example. Abiogenisis is rare and requires conditions which seem to be long gone from the earth and unlikely to return.

A supernatural creator is by definition non-existent in a natural world.

We are thus left with evolution, a well supported and very observable mechanism.

Side: evolutionism
2 points

HOLY CRAP. Reading this debate has frustrated me more than i can put into words. anyone who believes in creationsim is almost not worth debating with, at least, thats what im inferring from this debate. I mean truly? there is no proof that it is natural selection? how about countless books proving it? not enough, lets look at your famous creationist believers, shall we? how about the famous scientist, whom exactly i cannot recall the name, unfortunately, ill revise if i happen across it in my books again. He went on trial and in front of a full jury was torn to shreds, his argument was for the institution of creationism in the teaching curriculum. a judge concluded that he had no evidence and was not even educated in the topic. at least, the factual aspect of it. i'm sorry, but when he was on stand, and talking about the so called irreducibly complex creatures and scientist after scientist demonstrated fossil and logical evidence of evolutionary steps leading to the so called IC creatures. It was astounding to say the least to watch the person leading the creationist movement fall into peices under scientific scruntity, which im sure everyone on this debate would.

One arguement countless creationists pose is that it is impossible for one to assume that through creation a full blown human eye could be created. that there is no way the human eye could function if one part were to be removed. therefore, it must have been designed. However, what the creationist is trying ot argue is not in conflict with the darwinists belief, darwinists dont believe that the human eye was simply evolved to in one giant leap, we believe that through eons of time and small incremental changes and natural selection, we have arrived where we are today. and for the argument that if one peice was missing it would be useless? let us examin the common ground worms eye, not nearly as complex as ours, yet, it uses the eye to make out basic images that it uses, it is a much more basic eye, it lacks most of the components in a human eye, yet still allows sight. i would go further but i cannot idle my time argueing with those that wont listen. im always looking for someone to debate with that may actually listen if presented with factual and logical evidence, if such person exists please let me know,

Side: evolutionism
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
1 point

how about countless books proving it?

That assumes that the people writing the books are correct and that they even considered pursuing scientific evidence to the contrary.

a judge concluded that he had no evidence and was not even educated in the topic.

If he was not educated, that disproves the notion that he had the expertise to accurately represent creationists in court.

darwinists dont believe that the human eye was simply evolved to in one giant leap, we believe that through eons of time and small incremental changes and natural selection, we have arrived where we are today.

Why would the eye begin to develop in the first place? Even if it began to evolve, why would any adaptations contribute to its creation? The answer is that they would not, as the first steps produce no useful structure and consequently they violate natural selection. Before you answer with "mutations," remember that mutations do not add to information, but rather they alter, indeed they corrupt currently existing information. There is no reason to believe that the information for an eye (in the form of DNA) began to exist before it began to physically develop. For this evolution to occur, there would have been a requirement for coordination, but, biologically, this "blueprint" would never have developed.

Side: creationism
wrestlerii(57) Disputed
1 point

very good points sir, unfortunately i do have to make this quick, but ill be back when i can do edit and expand.

The fact of the matter is, creationism was believed before evolution, the burden of proof that was set for evolution to meet has been met. it was the thing that everyone said, its impossible, now, with the amount of evidence, the number of evolutionists grow every single day. The books on evolutionism take the creationism logic, and tear it down piece by piece, until there isnt any viable logic left, thats where creationists come in, they then change the way that people should look at their religion. For example - creationism started with the concept that the lord created our entire world, with all the creatures in it in 6 days, resting on the seventh, correct? now, since that time, the idea has changed, now creationists believe that the world was simply kicked into motion by some higher power. but i ask you sir, who created your higher power? or what i should say.

and i wasnt saying that he possessed the ability to accurately represent your movement, simply that the person that WAS representing your movement, the very face of the movement at the time, was completely uneducated. thats all.

again, thanks for the great debate, i think i got enough in for now, let me know if i missed anything, if not, your move

Side: evolutionism
1 point

Neither. But since there are only two choices evolution makes more sense to me.

Side: evolutionism
imrigone(761) Disputed
2 points

"Neither. But since there are only two choices evolution makes more sense to me."

What would the third choice be then?

Side: evolutionism
Liddy(36) Disputed
1 point

Third choice, understanding that we will/may never know how we came to be, and live contentedly with that understanding.

Side: creationism

Creationism is something just that. Ever since the evolution of mankind, we have seen things that we couldn't have an answer to. So someone started bowing down to a rock. And now thousands waste their money on these things were "god" can forgive them. Guess what nothing started from this god, it started from this thing called the Big Bang Theory. Otherwise it is in your psychological mind on how you want to believe in this and have an easier life. With "god" you have less stress. With "god you suddenly don't want to do something such as robber. It is purely psychological, on how we have taught how this is wrong.

Side: evolutionism
1 point

Firstly, here are some questions for you creationists:

-There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.

- Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?

- At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?

- Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?

-The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older.

-Beauty lies in simplicity. Why would God create such complex creatures? For example, why do we have 10 fingers, and not 12 (arithmetics is much easier in base 12).

- Fossil records show that evolution is a FACT.

Now, here comes the explanation disproving the probability argument that creationists love so much. If you're not a biochemist (why are you even arguing about something you barely know about), then I suggest reading just the part about tossing coins onwards.

If you're too lazy to read the explanation, read the final conclusion, since it's pretty important.

Having said that, all the calculations saying that the probabiblity of a protein forming is around (1/20)^300 are flawed, they include mistakes:

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote ), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself .

Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle . An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator . These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles.

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.

CREATIONISTS: simple chemicals ------> bacteria

ABIOGENESIS: simple chemicals---->polymers------>replicating polymers----->hypercycle------>protobionts----->bacteria

Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803!

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins . Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still, and preceded by even simpler chemical systems.

As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

The "life sequence" is a myth.

So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator, the SunY self-replicator or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group, but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)^32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10^390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.

Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)^6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks

So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence . Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. The general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

With that said, it's easy to see how the probability of proteins forming is not (1/20)^300. The reason that we haven't been able to reproduce these findings yet is because it takes time, millions of years maybe...

Finally, evolution has been proved. Nowadays, many new technologies rely on evolution, such as in computer science, where evolutionary algorithms are used to simplify complex modelling problems. Now, if evolution were false, these technologies wouldn't work... however they do work, therefore showing that evolution HAS to be true,

Side: Evolutionism