The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
profwamba
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution: Yay or Nay?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 41304
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

I am starting a new debate, this one on evolution. I believe evolution exists for many reasons, as I will state.
Please do not use the Bible, as it does not have any proven facts. I believe in God, but it isn't a science textbook. Disprove it some other way.

Here's a layout of the rounds:

[1] Acceptance
[2] Main Arguments
[3] Rebuttals and Arguments
[4] Rebuttals
[5] Conclusion

Thank you, and I look forward to a nice debate!
profwamba

Con

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Lets look at the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

I see you are very expierienced in the art of debating and that was very good.

Wait a second. ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS WERE COPIED AND PASTED FROM THIS LINK:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com...

Dude, come on! I was looking for a very good debate here, man!
profwamba

Con

I think the big no for me with regards to evolution is the simple fact that
1. we dont have animals that are half way through evolution (evolution is not happening now)
2. evolution is based on fuzzy data as in there are many gaps and make believe animals that are said to have existed whereby there is no actual evidence of their existence
3. Carbon dating on a 2 year old born will give you the same readings of millions, so carbon dating is not an accurate measure of time
3. the bible and the creation story has been validated by science & experience of billions of people history
4. the original architecture of the theory of evolution actually recanted on the theory of evolution
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

So you admit that you did copy and paste it all from that link?
Look, you forgot to do everything your grammar book taught you. And all of those points are, well, pointless. And you included two threes in your list. You don't have any links, I can barely understand what you are saying, but I'm going to try to post a rebuttal anyway.

"1.We don't have animals that are half way through evolution (evolution is not happening now)"
Evolution takes millions of years. One human being would not be able to witness evolution right before their eyes, as well as the fact that one would not be able to witness creationism with their own eyes. We do have animals going through evolution, probably. Illusions are always happening.

"2. Evolution is based on fuzzy data as in there are many gaps and make believe animals that are said to have existed whereby there is no actual evidence of their existence"
We have skeletons that prove many gaps' existence. And based on the fact that we are currently finding new skeletons, I bet that many missing links would be found. Make-believe? What evidence do you have to possibly render it all make-believe? We have skeletons. Where's the proof in God? Where is the proof that the Bible is true?

"3. Carbon dating on a 2 year old born will give you the same readings of millions, so carbon dating is not an accurate measure of time"
Millions? Carbon dating is only reliable back to 40K years. Uranium dating, however, would not give you the same reading. The half-life of uranium is 4.5 billion years, thus giving us a better reading. And a two year old is alive; carbon dating is usually only used for fossils. If you want to learn more, go to [1].

"3. The bible and the creation story has been validated by science & experience of billions of people history"
Validated? Do you know how many contradictions it has? What science? The unproven science of Christians? Seriously, your points are not factual at all. And by the way, this is your second three.

"4. The original architecture of the theory of evolution actually recanted on the theory of evolution"
What the heck does that even mean?

Ok, all of your points are wrong, have grammar mistakes, and almost unreadable. Either improve, or don't debate me.

Now for my points, which I'm sure you won't even try to argue anyway (or even understand it:)

1. Bird Beaks
So, apparently, birds both prove and disprove evolution. But let's look at how they help the case of evolution first: birds have evolved beaks meant for eating. Since the common belief is birds evolved from dinosaurs (which actually has a ton of evidence for) birds had to evolve beaks for their eating habits. Look at this chart on this link [3].


All birds have evolved different beaks for their eating habits. That is proved by the chart above. Each beak is so different, it seems like this point can not be disproved by anything other than the myth of creationism, which is still the only way that you can disprove evolution.

2. Human Skin Color [2]
One the parts of evolution is migration. As humans migrated north, they were bound to receive less sunlight. That makes their body produce more vitamin D, thus making their skin lighter. To prove my point, look at this chart [4].
There is another indisputable fact regarding evolution.

[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[2] http://ideonexus.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...





profwamba

Con

profwamba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

So here's what you've done so far:

-Copied and pasted from multiple websites,
-Listed zero strong reasons (in your own words),
-Broke the format that I put in the first round,
-Posted no rebuttals,
-Forfeited.

I further extend my arguments.
profwamba

Con

profwamba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
dtaylor971

Pro

Well, this debate is over. I further extend my arguments.

In the meantime, ultimate fails.

;
profwamba

Con

profwamba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Your sixth point is utter foolishness. The second law of thermodynamics states nothing of what you claim, and it is painfully obvious you have no education in science. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed or isolated system never decreases as a result of the isolated system moving toward thermodynamic equilibrium. In short, what this means is that a system will either increase or decrease to equal out the heat (energy) of the system. A simple way to apply this properly is to add a heat source to one end of a steel beam. The whole beam will heat up, which is an increase in energy, not a decrease. This is the same as evolution. By your absurd illogical understanding (or lack thereof), this would be physically impossible. The reason is because the whole beam will move to equilibrium.

The sun inputs heat into our system (the Earth), which is NOT closed. The system has a continual input of heat (energy) from the sun. Thus, the energy consumed and required for the process of evolution, is still less than the level of energy input, thus it is moving to equilibrium, and not defying thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics not only does not defy evolution, it makes evolution a necessary requirement. Evolution MUST occur according to the second law of thermodynamics.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Your fifth point is demonstrated as factually wrong simply by children having different coloured eyes than their parents. DNAs ability to repair its sequence does not mean that it self-replicates identically.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Your fourth point is not only 100% false, but it is foolishly ignorant. Female chromosomes are XX, male is XY. You are completely wrong in your statement. Furthermore, the X chromosome has 153 million base pairs, meaning it is not in defiance of evolution. The reason that it remains an X and not a Y is because the DNA between the two is different, and thus, one cannot become the other. The X chromosome comes from the mitochondrial DNA. This varies from the DNA found in the Y chromosome, and thus, will not cause it to genetically modify into an X, but will allow it to genetically modify into one of any 153 million base pairs. This is seen in all animals, and matches the gene sequencing found in mammals alongside humans.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Your third claim is also 100% false. Evolution says nothing about the formation of life, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is the process of imperfect self replication, which means it cannot exist before reproduction occurs...and reproduction cannot occur until AFTER a life form exists. Thus your entire claim is a straw-man and fallacious. Furthermore, you are entirely wrong on your concept of abiogenesis, which says nothing about lightning striking a pond to cause molecules to form into a cell. Nor are you correct in saying laboratory experiments have been unsuccessful in forming proteins this way. In 1953, the Miller-Urey experiment conducted this very test, and with greater success than we see in the natural world. Since then, countless other experiments have been repeated, and confirmed. With nothing more than inorganic elements added to a slurry of water, with electricity passed through, these tests were successful in completing the process and forming amino acid chains, or organic matter, from inorganic matter. The results of these peer-reviewed experiments are all published on the NCBI website. You are 100% wrong in this entire point.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
I apologize for the repeat posts. Not sure what happened. To continue:

your second point is also factually false. Scientists simply do not line up 'similar looking animals' and call them related. The lineage of apes and monkeys that evolved into humans have been confirmed through DNA, as well as genome sequencing. This statement is pure false, plain and simple. We know just how much DNA we share with, Neanderthal for example, by DNA comparison...the very same DNA comparison that is accurate enough to convict people of crimes in a supreme court. To deny this evidence, is to deny the evidence of all convicts convicted on DNA. Would you be willing to say these people were wrongfully convicted, and have them released in the public?
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Con, you are factually incorrect in your argument. Birds do not 'disprove' evolution by any means. It was the Finch that led Charles Darwin to his theory of natural selection in the first place. Over the course of nearly the next 200 years, scientists would unearth many primitive species of birds, of which, many do show a progression in wing shape, size, and function. If having wings and not being able to fly was such a disadvantage as to 'disprove' evolution, then there would be no such thing as flightless birds, of which there are many. The mere existence of these demonstrates your entire argument to be 100% wrong.

Since the debate is still ongoing, I will not post all the details of evolutionary evidence for the progression of wings, and the processes which caused them to evolve, or how 'half a wing' would be more advantageous than none. The simple point is, such an argument has all but derailed your entire debate.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Con, you are factually incorrect in your argument. Birds do not 'disprove' evolution by any means. It was the Finch that led Charles Darwin to his theory of natural selection in the first place. Over the course of nearly the next 200 years, scientists would unearth many primitive species of birds, of which, many do show a progression in wing shape, size, and function. If having wings and not being able to fly was such a disadvantage as to 'disprove' evolution, then there would be no such thing as flightless birds, of which there are many. The mere existence of these demonstrates your entire argument to be 100% wrong.

Since the debate is still ongoing, I will not post all the details of evolutionary evidence for the progression of wings, and the processes which caused them to evolve, or how 'half a wing' would be more advantageous than none. The simple point is, such an argument has all but derailed your entire debate.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
Con, you are factually incorrect in your argument. Birds do not 'disprove' evolution by any means. It was the Finch that led Charles Darwin to his theory of natural selection in the first place. Over the course of nearly the next 200 years, scientists would unearth many primitive species of birds, of which, many do show a progression in wing shape, size, and function. If having wings and not being able to fly was such a disadvantage as to 'disprove' evolution, then there would be no such thing as flightless birds, of which there are many. The mere existence of these demonstrates your entire argument to be 100% wrong.

Since the debate is still ongoing, I will not post all the details of evolutionary evidence for the progression of wings, and the processes which caused them to evolve, or how 'half a wing' would be more advantageous than none. The simple point is, such an argument has all but derailed your entire debate.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
https://www.google.com...

Now you can see them all for yourself!
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com...

This seems to be a big argument
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
dtaylor971profwambaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TorqueDork 3 years ago
TorqueDork
dtaylor971profwambaTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and Plagiarism make TorqueDork one sad puppy
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 years ago
ndedo
dtaylor971profwambaTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff, had poor S&G except fro when he plagiarized, made unconvincing arguments, and Pro had sources.