Evolution as Opposed to Creation - The Dared Challenge
Debate Rounds (5)
I would like to Debate this subject with you.
I would like this debate to be full of references, with sources included to back claims.
No structure with the debate, but late round claims cannot be made - you may reference them for your argument, but after round 3, it is under the discretion of the opposing side as to if they wish to respond (please Acknowledge the reference, but state "Will not proceed, due to late reference") - This is to keep the debate moving forward.
I am excited to see how this debate goes, and Good luck Dear Sir/Madam! :)
Adaptation: a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment. https://www.google.ca......
Micro evolution: evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. https://www.google.ca......
Micro evolution is just adaption working towards a more fit species as the end result. "When used by scientists, microevolution is the term for the gradual adaptation and evolution by a species which does not result in multiple new species." http://rationalwiki.org......
So birds in the same species with different shape beaks, dogs with different characteristics, humans with different color skin, it is all sound to me. I want to discuss how flawed it is to think that micro evolution can turn into macro evolution. Obviously if you breed two dogs you will get a dog, how can two apes breed a humanoid?
There is no indisputable evidence that that speciation has ever occurred due to evolution. http://www.ucg.org......
If we evolved from apes. WHY IS THE APE STILL AROUND THEN? Shouldn't they all be human?
As for fossil evidence I will now switch to another book called Creation and Evolution by Dwight K. Nelson In chapter two "The Achilles Heel of the Java Man". "So you"ve most likely heard of Java man, Peking Man and Nebraska man. These are reconstructed "prehuman humans" that people often see in museums, encyclopaedias and textbooks, they try to show that the evolutionist"s ideas of our origin are correct. In reality the pictures you see of Java man are based on just three parts. Three teeth, one leg bone, and part of a skull discovered by a Dutch army physician Eugene Dubois. In 1891 Dr. Dubois announced that he was off to find evidence of primitive man and travelled to the Solo River near the village of Trinal, Java, in Indonesia. He first discovered the skull cap along the bank of the river. About a year later he found two molar teeth and a human femur 15 meters away from the skull cap. In 1898 he found a premolar tooth that he believed to belong to his first find. Despite the finds being widely scattered Dubois made the conclusion that they belonged together. From 5 fragments he constructed what he later called Pithecanthropus Erectus (Greek, Erect ape-man) known as Java Man. Evolutionist"s have concluded that this represents an early predecessor of humankind that lived about half a million years ago. However before he died Dubois admitted that the Java Man closely resembled a Gibbon like ape. But the scientific community had already accepted that the find was one of the missing links they had been hoping for and ignored him.
Another similar case was that of Nebraska Man. Based on only one tooth found by Harold Cook in 1922. Cook mailed the tooth to a famous paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Osborn was fascinated by this find and compared it to all descriptions casts and drawings he could find and then consulted with three other scientists two of which were well known specialists on fossil primates. After much studying they announced that there was proof of an early man on the North American continent and published their find in the American Museum Novitates as follows. "It is hard to believe that a single water worn tooth "can signalize the arrival of the anthropoid primates in North America" We have been eagerly anticipating some discovery of this kind, but were not prepared for such convincing evidence"" This discovery named Hesperoppithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cooks Western ape) was illustrated in the London Daily Illustrated news and displayed a full paged spread reconstructing his whole shape, even the prominent brow ridges and broad shoulders from a single tooth! Sadly though two years later Nebraska Mans career came to an end. It turns out he was not a man not even an ape! The tooth turned out to be that of a fossil peccary. A wild animal related to the common pig. A man named Gish later wrote, "I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist." The following are the most common examples of human evolution.
Rampithecus: teeth and parts of a jaw that were found in India in 1932 were thought to be a fossil humanoid. However further studies now link these remains to chimps and baboons that are still living in Africa.
Australopithecus: Fossils of this kind were discovered in South Africa by Dart in 1924 and Leakey in Tanzania in 1959. Further studies by British scientists Zuckerman and Oxnard, indicate that these animals did not resemble man or ape and could be categorized as a species of their own. (However if we saw one today we would not hesitate to call it an ape.)
In 1973 Donald Johansson"s "Lucy" was found in 1973 in Ethiopia. With 40% of the remains the individual who was female was calculated to be a little over a meter tall and having one third of the normal brain capacity of the modern human. She was claimed to be a bipedal humanoid three and a half million years old. Remains of more individuals have also been found similar, however further studies have dimmed the hope of these to be truly Bipedal and therefore not the missing link.
Homo Habilus: First discovered by Leakey"s son Richard called skull 1470 considered to be the intermediate between
Australopithecus and Homo erectus (Java man). Recent discoveries on part of the skeleton has proved to be more apelike than thought before and there is concern that it may be a mosaic constructed from pieces of more than one species.
Neanderthal Man: pictured to be a primitive and brute like man until it became evident that he was fully human the skeleton was deformed by disease. His cranial capacity was greater or equal to that of modern humans.
Cro-Magnon Man: same as Neanderthal man cannot be used as evidence of our evolution from apes. Many other ancient human remains have been found but are either questionable, fragmentary or no significance for human evolution.
Piltdown man had an important part on the evolutionary tree for a long time before it was discovered that someone had pieced together part fossil, part fresh bone, part ape, and part human remains to construct a skull.
No convincing fossil evidence has been found."
Nelson, D. (2009). The Achilles' Heel of the Java Man. In Creation and Evolution (pp. 32-33). Nampa, ID, Pacific Press.
Next, a question that nobody can answer. Why are their both male and female creatures? Seriously if we came from a common ancestor meaning a potato could be my long lost cousin how come there are two sexes in man and other creatures and some only need one? http://www.findingdulcinea.com...
Interesting when you think that it is nearly impossible for two sexes to evolve from one common ancestor. Yet having creatures still around that only need one. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have only one sex to carry down traits?
How did the power to fly come along? How come some creatures somehow evolved the ability to fly while others didn't? First of all how and why did they fly? If we supposedly came from the sea which is what Darwin suggested how would they all of a sudden evolve wings? Also why are there flightless birds with wings?
Why are there no indisputable missing links? You know on Darwin's tree of life, at the base of the branches where different species supposedly broke off, http://inspirasi.co...
there is no fossil evidence for such a claim that the tree is real. Instead the fossil evidence and the Cambrian explosion show this. http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.ca...
So with all this evidence and more sure to come it is a correct claim that evolution has enough flaws to be called Swiss cheese.
Evidence of creation
1. There are elements of design everywhere in life. http://www.gotquestions.org...
From how the universe began, to how the earth is so diverse. http://www.godandscience.org...
2. Bible is accurate. http://www.icr.org...
The bible is the most historically accurate of any ancient book.
3. Theory of evolution has many flaws. http://www.ldolphin.org... which is what this debate is all about.
With all this evidence in tow and more to come it isn't to hard to see that evolution is full of flaws it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does in creation. https://answersingenesis.org... Now on to you pro.
Zarium forfeited this round.
Zarium forfeited this round.
Okay, well seeing as you have listed pretty much every known fossil that resembles a human - I think I can skip past that point - There is no definitive way I can prove that they are relatives to human - or humans ancestors. I am not an expert on the matter, and Experts cannot even get the definitive proof, and they have the physical evidence right there (a.k.a - the fossils!)
I will go through and try and debunk your claims, as I believe a lot of it is arguing for arguments sake.
"If we evolved from apes. WHY IS THE APE STILL AROUND THEN? Shouldn't they all be human?"
A lot of your statements appear to be well thought out and constructed - I must admit that this statement completely surprised me.
It is fundamentally accepted that centuries ago, the average height of a Human being was substantially less than today (I believe that during the same time frame as Jesus, the tallest of humans were around 4-5 feet.
We still have short people around today (This is not including those who have growth/genetic disorders that cripple growth, layman term "dwarf/Midget" - apologies for any offense, Midget is the definition and was used without malice). Do you think that perhaps they should die out, simply because others have evolved to be taller?
If your answer is no - Then why do you expect apes to have died out, simply because one possible avenue (Humans) has been reached?? The statement that just because we exist as humans means that Apes no longer cannot just baffles me, Why would you presume that in this wide world of ours that a rule like that exists ( I.e. "APE - MAN EXISTS NOW, YOU NO LONGER CAN. KTHXBAI")
Now you state that the Theory of Evolution is full of flaws, that is Agreed, it was made before technology was really .
However, what tangible evidence do you have that I can argue against that there is anything else other than Evolution that makes an animal change from one form to another based upon its' environment? (I guess I know what your response is, but I will leave the field open).
You make Claims of Intelligent Design, yet narrow the field of such intelligence to that of a Deity, Of all the organisms in the world, that we can actively interact with - Human DNA is quite possibly the oldest (Barring Pre-historic Ancestors) and smartest (Barring evidence that said Deity exists) animals that exist - Perhaps we made ourselves on a DNA level into such amazing creatures we are today (That would be referred to as "Evolution") - It is regardless how flawed a theory is; If it makes logical sense, and has physical proof to substantiate the claim, What else do we have??
Back to you for the Next round - Again apologies for dropping a couple of rounds.
Anyways now to your unsupported arguments that should fail pretty easily. First you claim that average height of humans back in time where quite small. Although you have no references I will still approach this as some fact. Now to disprove this evolution claims we should actually be growing shorter, ...what would evolution predict? The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. But this did not happen. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller."
My claim on why are apes still around is that according to evolution we evolved from apes yet this should take time with small changes there should be ample evidence of thousands of common ancestors. We have none! My sources were in the last argument you did not rebut this therefore it still stands.
Intelligent design. Yes did narrow it to a "God". This is because it is the only known force in the universe to be smarter than man. the rest of that paragraph makes no sense whatsoever therefore I dismiss this since you have no reference.
I am giving you what we have that is what this debate is about. One side evolution the other side creation or something else. Perhaps we made ourselves you say. Impossible. You cannot make something out of nothing. it is a well known theory.
For all these flaws in my opponents arguments I believe it is obvious who to vote for. I look forward to my opponents response.
Zarium forfeited this round.
Well due to the fact most of my arguments were not responded to, vote con, for I have told you the reasons that evolution is flawed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 10 months ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.