CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
18
Yes, evolution is observable No, creationism is observable
Debate Score:43
Arguments:30
Total Votes:48
Ended:04/15/09
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, evolution is observable (15)
 
 No, creationism is observable (15)

Debate Creator

lawnman(1106) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Which is observable, evolution or creationism?

 Any debate about evolution and creationism stirs many participants of CD. There are two camps that love to express their views and belittle the views of their counterparts.  

As the moderator of this debate, I will actively challenge, defend, and attack the arguments of both camps. (I will not down-vote or up-vote any argument) The purpose being of course an actual debate that renders an intellectual benefit unto all.

Beware: the question of this debate is a starting place of debate, it is not the conclusion of a debate. 

I am not interested in debating the question, I am however, interested in seeing a provocative debate between two opposing viewpoints. I aim to assist that objective.

Feel free to enter your argument; you are not alone.

I hope this will be fruitful for all participants and observers.

Yes, evolution is observable

Side Score: 25
Winning Side!
VS.

No, creationism is observable

Side Score: 18
4 points

easier to see a natural process occur than a made up process to occur.

Side: Yes, evolution is observable
lawnman(1106) Disputed
1 point

I will not be silent, nor will I be compassionate in my response to another derogatory comment you post. If you intelligently favor or oppose any view, you are most welcome to do so, but if you post another comment that fails to intellectually contribute to the quality of the debate I will make it a purpose of mine in this debate to thoroughly bare witness of your replies.

I am not attacking you, only your replies when warranted.

Side: Moderator comment
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

It was actually quite intelligent because it was based on common sense. We see evolution happening, just how we see aging happening. Evolution has been proven as a valid and real theory. Something that almost every scientist will agree is truth.

Creationism is based on what some guy said. He then wrote a book and provided NO EVIDENCE. just said "God created man in his image". I never saw God do this, mainly because I've never even seen God. So, with all info provided, Creationism is made up.

Until, of course, evidence is provided saying that God did make man in his image.

Side: Yes, evolution is observable
3 points

From the Wikipedia Evolution FAQ:

Evolution, as a fact, is the gradual change in forms of life over billions (1,000,000,000s) of years. In contrast, the field of evolutionary biology is less than 200 years old. So it is not surprising that scientists did not directly observe, for example, the gradual change over tens of millions of years of land mammals to whales. However, there are other ways to "observe" evolution in action.

Scientists have directly observed and tested small changes in forms of life in laboratories, particularly in organisms that breed rapidly, such as bacteria and fruit flies. Evolution has also been observed in the field, such as in the fish tilapia, the plant Oenothera lamarckiana which gave rise to the new species Oenothera gigas, and the peppered moth. A new species of mosquito has even evolved in the London Underground system since it opened.

Scientists have observed large changes in forms of life in the fossil record. From these direct observations scientists have been able to make inferences regarding the evolutionary history of life. Such inferences are also common to all fields of science. For example, the neutron has never been observed, but all the available data supports the neutron model.

In the case of evolution, the inferences have been tested by the study of more recently discovered fossils, the science of genetics, and other methods. For example, critics once challenged the inference that land mammals evolved into whales. However, later fossil discoveries illustrated the pathway of whale evolution. So, although the entire evolutionary history of life has not been directly observed, all available data supports the fact of evolution.

Side: Yes, evolution is observable
2 points

Bravo, you provided the evidences for why you adhere to your viewpoint, all without once referencing the oppositions viewpoint. Too many participants of CD attempt to validate or give merit to their viewpoint by attacking the opposing viewpoint. Well done! Your argument is one of only a few arguments I have read that was not in one form or another predicated upon the opposing view.

Beautifully presented!

Side: Moderator comment
Bradf0rd(1431) Disputed
2 points

"Too many participants of CD attempt to validate or give merit to their viewpoint by attacking the opposing viewpoint."

If everyone simply stated their opinions without "attacking" other's viewpoints, it wouldn't be a debate, would it? This site would be called CreateOpinion, not CreateDebate. Let people fight, that's what debate is about. Sure, it gets ridiculous here, when I started I was one of the first to point out ad hominem arguments, so I get where you're coming from, but since then I've realized the more serious problem was not whether or not the arguments offend the participants, but the ever degrading quality of each argument, and then each debate. There is little on CD anymore that is worth real thought. I won't research anything anymore because no one would read it, no one would do their own research to counter your argument. It seems like you just get up votes as soon as you lose someone's interest...

P.S. Who died and made you mod? Maybe try scolding people rather than giving people who are doing the right thing a pat on the back... it's not that their arguments are especially good, it's that the rest are incredibly bad.

Side: Moderator comment

Ridiculous! i want to get into a debate about Creation VS. evolution and half of you guys are debating about how to debate! anyway, what i want to point out is that there is no proof of evidence in the fossil record. when scientists date the fossils, they use carbon dating quite often. they look at the samples and determine how old it is by looking at radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of the specimen. who says how old radioisotope carbon-14 is? The Scientists! This big flaw in this method of dating makes it unreliable and thus renders it useless. the fossil record also challenges evolution with the Cambrian explosion( a sudden appearance of vastly different life forms during an extremely short period of time.) also, how could such a vast amount of fossils be found in one place? a massive and quick burial would do the trick, not unlike what a Great Flood might have done...wink wink nudge nudge. as for those lab tests which were mentioned by my friend to the side here, there are at least two reasons which disprove evolution about them. 1. it is micro evolution, small adaptations to the organisms environment, or 2. it proves that it takes intelligence to create life or make it "evolve". woohoo! go God! as for proof that creation is observable, why is man the only creature which is gifted with many forms of speech, able to populate and conquer all areas of the earth, invent neat things like the Internet, and think on a deeper level than any other animal? i dont see bears or chimps with Internet yet!

Side: No, creationism is observable
lawnman(1106) Disputed
1 point

doublejumper,

Your post contains no argument or even a premise that attempts to affirm your viewpoint. You must state in a propositional form the evidence of your position.

Attacking the oppositions arguments without affirming your own view point in a propositional form is cowardly. Disproving, or the attempt to disprove, the oppositions viewpoint is not the validation of your position.

If you want to validate your position then validate your position. The theory of evolution may be true or it may be false. Likewise, creationism may be true or it may be false.

Prove the truth of your view to validate your view. Proving the falsity of the opposing view cannot prove your view is true.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium is the chief fallacy of your post.

Side: Moderator comment
1 point

sorry about that lawnman. my viewpoint is that CREATION CAN BE OBSERVED. i thought that by clicking on that it pretty much affirmed my viewpoint. my reasoning for this is that i have faith in God that he created us all. it is true because it is backed up by the bible and the prophecies which Jesus fulfilled.

creation can be observed everywhere. by looking at all of the animals and comparing them to us we can see that humans are so far ahead of every other creature, we could not have evolved from them. all of the other creatures had the same amount of time that we did and yet none evolved into sentient beings. sorry i didn't put this in my previous post. I'm new here

Side: No, creationism is observable

Weighing in on this side tells you that Creationism is the most observable to me, when in fact, both are! Should the scientific studies be correct they still do not rule out the Creationist theory altogether and vice versa.

Many people say that it cannot be proved but I beg to differ simply by drawing your attention to the wars fought because of it and Religion on the whole. They go back as far as recorded history and cannot be dismissed that easily. History tells me that both phenomena were here at some time or another and it matters little to me which came first...the dinosaur or the egg or the many writings, like the Dead Sea Scrolls that had been discovered some time ago.

Undoubtedly either belief system has to do with what is more believable to you. Does science explain it all? Does Creationism? I don't think they do, to completion. If evolution is truth then why are we not still evolving into higher beings? Did we simply stop or is this some indication that Creationism explains it more fully when it comes to man-kind?

Side: BOTH ARE OBSERVABLE
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

"If evolution is truth then why are we not still evolving into higher beings?"

Evolution takes place over millions of years, so you shouldn't expect to see changes over just a few thousand.

Also, because of modern technology, nearly all humans are able to survive and reproduce. If nobody dies, then there is no survival of the fittest, and there is no evolution.

p.s. The downvote didn't come from me :p

Side: Yes, evolution is observable

The down votes come from those who cannot fathom the notion of both or even more things as contributing factors. For that they are, in my book, the cretins of the universe and not worth a dime.

Side: BOTH ARE OBSERVABLE
2 points

Excellent!

You, like jessald, refused to stand upon the opposing viewpoint to explain the wherefore of your view. I think , regardless of the viewpoint, any observer of CD will admit there is both dignity, honesty and respect for the views of others in both arguments. Asking questions that legitimately request additional information of the opposite view seem to be illusive to they who debate this question. There is simply too much emotion involved in their arguments.

Very considerate method of debate!

Thanks for participating. I’ll continue to watch this debate, and the respect you have demonstrated will be the same respect I’ll pursue of other’s who respond to this debate.

Side: Moderator comment

Thanks so much for your very complimentary response to my input. That was very kind of you, Lawnman. As to Jess, he too is an ally and a very good and sweet man. He thinks outside the box too and it's something I appreciate in him. He is very rarely off the mark.

Side: No, creationism is observable
Mahollinder(900) Disputed
2 points

"Weighing in on this side tells you that Creationism is the most observable to me, when in fact, both are!"

Not true. There has never been an observed instance of creation within the Creationist framework. Evolution, on the other hand, has been observed in the laboratory (bacterial: E.Coli/speciation) and in nature (bacterial: nylonase/speciation, Mammalian: speciation, plants: polyploidy/hybridization/speciation).

"Should the scientific studies be correct they still do not rule out the Creationist theory altogether and vice versa."

Evolutionary theory and creationism explain two different phenomena. Creationism attempts to explain the origin of life while evolutionary theory describes the processes that led to life diversifying - that is, evolutionary theory explains the observation that allele frequencies (gene distribution within, between and throughout populations) change over time.

If the scientific study into abiogenesis - on the other hand - continues to expand our understanding of the development of biochemical processes leading to life on this planet and we can show that natural forces led to the development of life on this planet, then creationism will necessarily be falsified.

"Many people say that it cannot be proved but I beg to differ simply by drawing your attention to the wars fought because of it and Religion on the whole. They go back as far as recorded history and cannot be dismissed that easily. History tells me that both phenomena were here at some time or another and it matters little to me which came first...the dinosaur or the egg or the many writings, like the Dead Sea Scrolls that had been discovered some time ago."

This is actually nonsensical and has no bearing on whether either evolution or creation have been observed or are observable.

"Undoubtedly either belief system has to do with what is more believable to you."

No, it actually doesn't. Evolutionary theory is a robust model describing observed phenomena, utilizing facts of biochemistry, genetics, immunology, Embryology, virology etc. to explain the interelatedness and diversification of life on this planet. It is not a matter of belief, but how accurately we can describe these phenomena and therefore an issue of accepting whether or not the description is substantive and sufficient. I don't believe in the theory of gravity since it only explains how or why objects with mass are attracted to each other, or germ theory since it describes how or why germs can cause disease. I accept these explanations because they are supported by evidence. Creationism is necessarily about belief since it relies completely on claims alone and no observations or experiments to verify the claims being made.

"Does science explain it all?"

This is a pointless question. The point of evolutionary theory is to explain how life has diversified over time. It is not about explaining "it all" (whatever that means).

"If evolution is truth then why are we not still evolving into higher beings?"

Evolution - as a biological process - does not mean that organisms evolve into higher beings. "Higher being" has no quantitative meaning. But humans (to be more specific: homosapien sapiens) have undergone evolution: lactose tolerance, HIV (immunity for some people) and Malaria resistence, increased brain sizes and cognitive abilities, nearly indestructable bones for some parts of the population, increased muscle mass and density, and strength for others.

"Did we simply stop or is this some indication that Creationism explains it more fully when it comes to man-kind?"

As per the examples above and the simple fact that allele frequencies change every single generation of the existence of a population of living organisms, no. We (including the entire biological spectrum) have not stopped evolving.

That being said, creationism doesn't explain anything at all, actually. Since it proposes no mechanism or method of creation (unless there is some explanation as to how mud can turn into flesh, muscle, bones etc. or how Bramhan separated space and time to form human beings), there is nothing to account for and nothing it can account for.

Side: Yes, evolution is observable
1 point

Hi Mahollinder!!! My goodness, where have you been...I've missed you and your wonderful questions and thoughts. OK, to business.

If you please, how can you tell me that what I believe to be observable is not so to ME? I do see both but sometimes don't always know which to chalk it up to.

Yes they do, however, that is not to say that one rules out the other.

Most opposition to Creationism is due to there not being a written journal, if you will, of the exact events of that time as well as no one on Earth today has ever had a sighting! I believe that many things point to both Creationism and Evolution and if we talk about proof, in writing, the Holy Wars were fought for some reason and were well documented. Creationism is a belief system while Evolution is scientific. There simply was no documentation for Evolution at that time in history.

I find the next two comments to be unbearably absent of faith and truth as I see it and I find my next comment to be incomplete although it was not meant to be. Evolution is difficult to measure since it has taken place over billions of years. Mine was not a well thought out question. It is true that we have not stopped evolving. The question remains though that it may have been God's will as well to evolve into more complex beings across the board whether it involve science or human knowledge.

Welcome back!

Side: BOTH ARE OBSERVABLE
1 point

I fully agree that both exist. So many people I know put down creationism completely. I think the reason is because creationism is seen as "God made this and made that in one day and made this and that and another day," but I've always believed creation as the Big Bang. I feel science has explained so much about how the Earth was created and how life came to be and even how the universe began, but nobody will ever have a scientific explanation for how the Big Bang came to be. They can only say that it was a massive explosion of extremely dense matter, but the only question I ask after that is "Where did that dense matter come from?" The answer could only go back to creationism.

P.S. I up-voted. :)

Side: BOTH ARE OBSERVABLE
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

"The answer could only go back to creationism."

Not true, the answer could go back to an infinite number of things.

Some random examples:

1) The Christian version of God.

2) Result of the collision of 10 dimensional space rocks.

3) We exist is a simulation. (This one is cute.)

4) Aliens did it.

5) The universe has simply always existed, in a never ending bang/crunch cycle.

I could go on.

Side: Yes, evolution is observable
1 point

The assertion that God is the first cause of life is the key principle of creationism. The assertion that life is the consequence of life is the key principle of the theory of evolution. One viewpoint is the assertion of the cause, the other viewpoint is the assertion of the consequence. The two viewpoints answer separate questions. One answers the cause of the existence of life, the other answers the consequence of the existence of life. And according to those principles, neither viewpoint is an argument for or against one another. They are not contradictory.

I am taking the debate to the next stage. ( I will not debate)

State your view of the above…

Side: Moderator comment
1 point

I agree with you. I mean, I believe in both creationism and evolution. I believe in evolution because there is evidence of it in fossil records, convergent evolution, etc. But I also believe in creationism. Even if the universe is a continuous thing, there had to be a beginning to life. And how else can one explain this beginning.

Side: BOTH ARE OBSERVABLE