The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
PresadentWalker
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Evolution: Philosophically disproved.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,186 times Debate No: 12304
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (6)

 

GodSands

Pro

The first round of mine won't be that long, just an introduction.

I want to place emphasis on how do species evolution into new species.

I have just thought up, what I think is a valid piece of philosophy.

Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features. So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb.

So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species.

Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude.

Species = features. Macro limb perhaps.

Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps.

For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail).

And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs, but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features.

My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.
PresadentWalker

Con

Good evening pro. I selected this debate to expand my knowledge of the subject. I know of evolution, but I am not a fan of it's facts. I believe we were created for a reason, what we are arguing about is biological mutations, which was a mistake, a big accident. If someone was to proof this method, the wolrd would be in kaos, nothing to look forward to.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

Evening to you also. With all honesty, I was hoping for someone who would put up a good argument. So in that case what I will do is this: Continue this debate and also I will copy and paste my first round and start a new debate. What would have been best is if you wanted to be further educated on this topic, what you should do is be apart of the bystanders. In that case someone else who is philosophically educated and can put up a good argument and create a good show.

I am not teaching anyone here rather debating someone. So I am sorry, in the next round what could be an idea is that you maybe put forth some questions that would challenge my philosophical idea.
PresadentWalker

Con

PresadentWalker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

PresadentWalker has forfeited the last round, this debate has failed to lift off. Go check out my other one: Evolution:Philosophically stupid.
PresadentWalker

Con

sorry for my delay on the argument. let's finish this debate, shall we.

Ok.. let me get this straight. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand... Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change.

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
There's really nothing to vote on here. As Cerebral_Narcissus says, GodSands is blabbering gibberish. Based on his profile, I might suppose that English would be his first language, but it's hard to tell here. And Con has no idea what he is actually here for.

Fail
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Ok. Thank you for voting.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Burden of proof is on GodSands to disprove a well verified and well accepted scientific theory and he failed to do so, regardless of Con's arguments.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
The fact that I have written this and thought up this philosophical theory shows that I know about evolution, now why is my theory gibberish. If you are indeed so confient?
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
No, why is my philosophical theory gibberish?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Just look up evolution and read about it okay?
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Why is it gibberish?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Okay, that was unfair... it's mostly gibberish. An 'argument' can be gleaned from the mess, it is an old one and the education you have gained via this site renders it null and void. You just refuse to learn.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
I'll give you until 11pm tonight my time to give you a reason why you think I have just typed sophistry, if you have not given a reason by then. I will place you under denial of this philosophical theory.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 2 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
GodSandsPresadentWalkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: What even? Guys... Con forfeited R2. The only round he even made arguments in was R3 (when Pro had no chance to respond)! Personal bias is not a good voting criteria. RFD: Pro used arguments, sources, and had better conduct (no ff and no new arguments in last round). I could also give S/G to Pro, but Con's grammatical errors weren't egregious. I'll let it slide.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
GodSandsPresadentWalkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. con forfeited 2. pro used sources 3. pro made arguments and con made them when pro could no longer reply
Vote Placed by Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
GodSandsPresadentWalkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
GodSandsPresadentWalkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
GodSandsPresadentWalkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
GodSandsPresadentWalkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03