The Instigator
The-patriot
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Evolution, does it make sense?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,209 times Debate No: 30497
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (418)
Votes (4)

 

The-patriot

Con

Does evolution make sense? Well i hardly have an answer now but ill draw up some facts and stories then ill conclude my thoughts.The religion of Evolution

The more people I encounter who subscribe to evolution as a plausible explanation for the beginning of the human species, the more I see common ground between atheists and the religious. The underlying aspect is the vehement defense of their beliefs, and the need to debunk outside ideologies in order to prove that they are right. There are those who go to great lengths acting as apologists in defense of their faith, all the while mocking, and ridiculing any naysayers.

Lastly the most perplexing of all is the assertion of moral superiority. For some reason this matters a great deal to the Atheist who is trying to convert the believer. Why should morality mean anything to us if we just came from a pile of goo, and are destined to become nothing more than food for worms?

In my mind Evolution theory is nothing more than militant atheism in disguise. It is being pushed into the schools by atheists because they know, despite the fact that there is no plausible application for this theory, it is a damaging antithesis to the foundations of religion.

Primordial ooze

How is it possible that the Earth slowly comes into existence, and all life comes from some puddle of goo that was struck by lightning, and somehow all the cells in all the ponds of goo in the world grew into a bunch of diverse creatures, and yet nothing comes close to possessing the kind of brain activity that humans do?

Are we to believe that humans are so randomly fortunate to have been struck by lightning at the right angle with the exact amount of force it takes in order for us to have come out with advanced bodies and minds, with the capability to think, build, hunt, communicate, and so forth, while other species on the Earth advance no further than that of a dung beetle. In my opinion, it seems only logical in order for us to maintain an evolutionary standard of thinking, everything should have a frontal lobe, and all manner of different species should have been competing with us in the space race.

The progression of thought

The theory of evolution leads the average person to believe that a species evolves slowly over millions of years, yet there is a fatal flaw in this design. We have this unreliable method of figuring out just how old something or someone is through the use of carbon dating technology. So when archaeologists dig up something that has no possible way of figuring out an estimated date of origin they use carbon dating as a means of backup in order to create the illusion of the modern day all knowing answers for everything science. This is a clever example of scientists using their assumptions to dictate their conclusions. (which is ironic because atheist scientists accuse religious people of doing the same thing.)

It does seem better, for some reason, for them to declare that this object in our possession is twenty five million years old! when in reality they don't have a clue. So when they find an unidentified body they naturally assume, based on the unrecognizable style of clothing, and primitive hand tools, it correlates with their carbonated shot in the dark.

Now we have writings which date back to 3000 BC. The first written language known as Cuneiform, invented in Sumer.

So we have the slow and methodical development of the human mind getting smarter and smarter over millions of years with no real proof of written language. Then all of a sudden people learn to write, and then over a period of a mere seven thousand years people begin to build large societies, and work together in agriculture. Then cities are built, large complex buildings, and advancements in knowledge of metals and alloys explode everywhere, weapons get more and more complex, we go from throwing spears to building nuclear warheads.

Transportation advances carry mankind across continents in years, months, weeks, and down to hours, even to the point where people have journeyed on space missions. Communication goes from primitive Epistles, to letters, books, E-mail, and twitter to anyone everywhere.

The exponential growth of the human mind over the last seven thousand years blows the notion of slow multi million year development of human thought out of the water, unless by some unexplainable theory, a tiny piece of their minds suddenly spurted out an extra five inches of nerve endings that magically turned on the lights for everyone, everywhere, and for no reason at all, they were all able to sit down with a chisel and stone and start writing poetry in the form of religious assertions.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Firstly, I'd like to point that my opponent has took his entire argument from this link here: http://onusonus.hubpages.com...; As it is a hubpage, I am sure my opponent has wrote the article himself, as he realises that plagiarism is an incredibly dishonest tactic for debating, the equivalent of lying.

Now, firstly let's remind everyone of the theory of evolution. It takes a simple form:

Genetic Mutation + Natural Selection = Diversification.
Diversity + Time = Speciation

Everything else is just added theory onto evolution. In other words, if everything else regarding evolution except these two equations are disproved, then evolution still is true and makes sense.

I'll assume that we know nothing of evolution, and cover all of the aspects.

Genetic Mutation

Humans have genes. These genes are what, on the whole, sets us up for life. These genetics control what we turn out as, whether we are a man or a goldfish or a banana. However, as we grow through generation after generation, our genetics, in their billions, randomly change. These are like product defects: things don't come out how they're programmed to. This is genetic mutation.

Natural Selection

The vast majority of genetic mutatons are extremely unfavourable, usually resulting in genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or Huntington's. However, a small few are beneficial to species. Others are neutral, and over time with different circumstances give an advantage to a species. Naturally, species which are better suited to survive, survive, on the large scale of things. This principle is natural selection

Diversification

The species with these advantages reproduce more. These genetic mutations, then, become replicated more and more, and eventually they become the norm. This situation where there are now two species: the former and the latter, is the diversification.

Speciation

Over time, the genetic mutations stack up. One mutation becomes two. Two becomes ten. Ten becomes hundreds. Other time, the genetic mutations become so large that the different but similar species become so unique they cannot produce another species for them. This is speciation.

Now, to my opponent's case.

Abiogenesis

The Primordial Ooze hypothesis has nothing to do with any stage of evolution, as it is to do with abiogenesis.

Carbon Dating

Again, this is irrelevant, but for many reasons. Firstly, we have known for decades carbon dating doesn't work over millions of years: we don't use it to date things that old. Secondly, we have many other methods to date fossils, most usually using fossil indexes to compare the ages of fossils with one another. We also use superposition to date the age of fossils depending on the depth of the rock it is found in. Finally, this again doesn't have any problems with any of the claims of evolution.

Age of writings

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. However, it simply is discussing the paradoxically fast growth of civilisation. The truth is, it's so fast it is post-evolutionary: it works faster than any major changes can truly be made. When before we had to wait (figuratively) hundreds of generations to be bette able to hunt ox, now, we can spend 10 minutes making a shoddy spear. We can work at it for a month and make good spears. This is because it's outside the model of evolution. Which brings me back to my point: this has nothing to do with evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
The-patriot

Con

The-patriot forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
The-patriot

Con

The-patriot forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
418 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
They use cross breeding to get a good trait. This only shows how micro evolution happens and does not add new information. That plant, will alway be that plant. The majority of the advances usually add bad things anyways.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Without the advances in fruit, vegetable and grain production improvements brought about by humans using the rules of Evolution, we'd all be starving now.
Production of disease resistant varieties of grain, vegetable crops and fruit trees.
The banana we eat today has been genetically modified from the traditional straight, seed filled less palatable banana of the wild.
If we relied on nature to improve and provide us with food.
The human race would be in severe food shortage, since the crops would all be disease stricken with greatly reduced harvests.
So, Sol is still demonstrating his extreme naivety in all things real!
Aye M8z! :-D~
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Mhm, science, math, and common sense goes against evolution.

How would they be without water and fresh food.
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
No science and common sense is ".
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Are you implying that they had no food or water
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
I see, "so a too shallow gene pool could live with no oxygen, fresh water, food "..for 6000 years"Okay, sure...how does this happen again?
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Wrong. If the earths population increased any where near now we could have easily made the current population. However, with your theory, if would have never happened if we started as a single cell organism
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
You"re here and now arguing there was a flood"had you and your species become extinct and NOT been able to post here, then your argument might have held water (pun intended). Life on the earth would have died having taken millions of years to become inhabitable again. : )
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Actually, a large flood would be powerful enough to make the canyon. The grand canyon has many of the attributes related to a large flood. The fossils that are in their shows evidence of a quick covering of mud very suddenly. If you look at other slowly made cayons, very few if any fossils would be made. A slow cover up is not good enough to make fossils. Also, the limestone which is at one end of the Grand canyon shows very recent erosion, to recent for your theory.

The water of the great flood came about when the fountains of the deep burst forth and filled in some of the ocean afterwards and some making the clouds.

I would also not talk much about mental illnesses. Darwin was known to suffer many mental illnesses. If he lived in the modern age, he would have to be constantly helped.
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
Evolutionists are followers of science, Intelligent designers are magicians and while there is science to magic, there is no magic to science.
If a savior dies on the cross does any Christian hear it"..science says if a Christian does it is not for another 500 years or so. : )

https://www.youtube.com...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
The-patriotStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit on Con's side.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
The-patriotStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
The-patriotStephen_HawkinsTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a reliable source and had a rational explanation for all his points. Con forfeited two rounds.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
The-patriotStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Also, Pro had superior spelling and grammar.