All types of evolution are completely false and without any academic merit.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 19 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
| Started: | 1/16/2012 | Category: | Science |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,645 times | Debate No: | 20429 |
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (39)
Votes (19)
 Pro Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Main argument (no rebuttal) Rules: No ad hominem No straw man No being offensive All terrorism comments will be irrelevant Good luck to my opponent.  Con I accept this debate. Observation 1: For the purposes of this debate I only have to prove that one specific type of evolution is partially true and deserving of academic merit. Observation 2: You have opened the types of evolution up so wide that I could argue that the there are truths from the evolution of whales to the evolution of dance. For the purposes of today's debate I provide the following definitions. All of which are from merriam-webster's dictionary. -All: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of (1) -types: groupings of particular kind, class, or group (2) -evolution: a process of change in a certain direction (3) -completely false: all elements being not genuine (4,5) -any: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind (6) -academic merit: the praiseworthy quality of, relating to, or associated with material in an academy or school (7,8) (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (5)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (6)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (7)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (8)http://www.merriam-webster.com... Good luck to you in the coming round. I wish I had more than 2,000 characters to use for the next round. |
 |
|
Pro I apologize for the misunderstanding; I meant that the theories of evolutionary biology are false. 1. Evolution is just a theory. I and most Americans don't want to change our beliefs about the origins of life because of something thant's only a theory. 2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Disorder increases with time, why isn't there any disorder with the earth and universe? Because science is made up of lies and hateful ignorance. How did species evolve if this is a scientific principle? They didn't. Allah created them. 3. If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn't exist today. Why aren't babies born as monkeys and apes today, if that's what we evolved from? This is just a 4. Carbon dating isn't accurate in measuring the age of fossils. The scientists don't even know the age of the fossils, because carbon dating isn't accurate at measuring fossil age. This just further proves the guesswork involved in evolutionary biology. 5. Evolution is stupid and requires more faith than religion. Look at my point above, and it is clearly easy to see that it takes a greater leap of faith to believe this pseudo-science than to believe Allah created it. Thank you Con I will prove that microevolution is true and worth academic merit. Microevolution occurs every day and is uncontroversial, thoroughly-documented, and naturally occurring as it does not conflict with the acounts of creation presented in any books of superstition. It describes the process in which genetic material is rearranged, lost, drifted, or mutated through sexual reproduction or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale changes within a population's (in a singular species) characteristics. In an article entitled The Unfortunate Sex Life of the Banana (2) the cherished fruit is demonstrated to be a product of selective breeding. The banana is a hybrid of two South Asian wild plant species: Musa acuminata (unpalatable) and Musa balbisiana (seedy af), and over the centuries has been selectively bred to embellish the most desirable traits: few small seeds, abundant sweet flesh, and the curved phallus shape. After many generations, the banana has grown much larger, the flesh has become sweeter, and the thick fecundity has improved to its most attractive level yet. Other examples include dog breeds (Chijuajua and English Mastiff) and horse breeds. R1: Are as equally upset with Gravity? It's just a theory... R2: 2nd Law only works in a closed system, earth isn't one. R3: We didn't; we share a common ancestor: Ardipithecus kadabba. R4: It's not very effective without carbon in a specimen. Radiocarbon dating only works until 58,000 to 62,000 years ago. R5: No evidence of god(s). There is evidence of evolution. If you hate that evolution is occuring in your state of New Jersey, you can petition to get it banned like they did in Kansas. (3) (1) www.gotquestions.org/microevolution-macroevolution.html (2) www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life-of-the-banana/ (3) http://www.theonion.com... Thank you for debating and judging. |
 |
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved his case.
Vote Placed by Double_R 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Aside from Pros bare assertions of her own opinion on the matter, even accepting every "argument" she made would still not affirm the resolution. And that is before you consider the fact that she did not support anything she said with facts or compelling logic. Cons case was more then enough to negate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made only unsupported claims. Con's rebuttals were appropriate and sourced.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented no evidence and made no arguments. Unsupported assertions are not arguments.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Whoever made that fake account must be an atheist, because those are all standard Christian arguments.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Straight 7! See comments
Vote Placed by lliwill 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Islam_Forever never posed relevant arguments. Only chose to discuss religious beliefs, while not citing any sources.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con made actual arguments. Pro made only unexplained claims.
Vote Placed by rogue 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were unsupported and frankly grossly ignorant.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 1 year ago
| Islam_Forever | Wallstreetatheist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Evolution quite obviously exists in some way.
If none has any relevance to your emotions why did you respond?
Define Poe's law please.