The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Evolution is Defensible.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,180 times Debate No: 69967
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




In this debate, I will defend evolution from Con's various arguments .
I did this debate before but no one voted, therefore it was a tie.
But first, I will provide an definition of Evolution.
Evolution- the scientific theory that states modern organisms descended from ancient ones through a process of gradual modification over billions of years and share a common ancestry.

There will be 5 rounds with an maximum of 2,000 Characters.
Here's the debate will look like.
Round 1 - Acceptance and new arguments
Round 2 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments.
Round 3 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments.
Round 4 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments.
Round 5 - Defense of your arguments, but no new arguments.
The voting period will last for 2 weeks and myself and the opponent will have 72 hours to post the argument.
Here is some rules for Pro and Con to follow.
- No Semantic interpretations (For example, using the word theory in an way that means guess when you are suppose to use the scientific meaning of the word)
- Please refrain from using the bible or any other holy texts to try disprove evolution.
- You must understand what you post as I do not want my opponent to simply copy and paste from anti-evolutionist websites without knowing what the information says.
- Avoid throwing insults around, even if you are annoyed at the opponent for any reason.
- The debaters follow the rules at all times.
This should be obvious but I hope you enjoy the debate


With all the technology we have now we still can't 100% prove that evolution is a fact. If the earth is billions of years old then it should be easy to find fossils anywhere you dig. Many animals have died in the billions of years that the earth has been here, so why can't I go dig anywhere and find a fossil? Even with the many layers of rock, There should be countless of fossils to be examined. Science is all about observation, you need to observe something to know its a fact. Scientist say that evolution is real because they found fossils. The scientist did not see what happened to the fossils or if they are an extinct or a deformed creature. How can scientist be so sure that the fossils are not another species or a deformed animal? Trilobites have hard bodies and are complex creatures. There have been no previous ancestors of arthoprods found in anywhere around the world in any layer of rock. Trilobite fossils are found all around earth with no creature that is similar to a trilobite. Trilobites had hard shells, basic organs and complex eyes like the ones flies have. The eyes have 100's of sophiscated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. In the way scientist think they would say that it had to take billions and billions of years for there to have been a hard shell creature. But yet there had been no creatures that have been found that show the small changes of one species to another. People or animals without the right number of chromosomes can't have offspring's. Animals or humans with any defect don't have the right amount of chromosomes. Humans with down syndrome can not produce a baby due to the lack of chromosomes. These mutations are reccesive and cannot be a reason for evolution to be proven. Scientist say mutations occurred and its a reason why evolution is real but mutations need to be dominant. Dominant genes get passed down and recessive genes hardly do.
Debate Round No. 1


The first two are simply nitpicks, but the opponent should read and learn from it for future debates.
The first nitpick is that nothing in science is 100% proved, since doing that requires infinite evidence (which is not possible to obtain).
The second nitpick is that it is that your objections are not placed into separate paragraphs, it makes it easier to accidentally miss your arguments if you do that.

Your argument is that there not as many fossils around as they should be.
But this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of animals that die and decompose before they get the chance to fossilize.

"Science is all about observation, you need to observe something to know its a fact. Scientist say that evolution is real because they found fossils. The scientist did not see what happened to the fossils or if they are an extinct or a deformed creature."
Actually ,There more evidence for evolution then just the fossils.
One of the evidences for evolution is called, which is called speciation.
here so examples.

I ran out of time so I to post so links.
I am unable to find any website saying you said chromosomes


Evolution is not defendible as my opponent clearly said "nothing in science is 100% Proved". This means that evolution can't be real. How can you same something is a fact if it can't be proven 100%?
Even if there is more evidence besides fossils it still wont be enough. Fossils are the biggest evidence need to prove evolution. Scientist cannot find any transitional fossils.
No one knows the exact date of fossils. Scientist say they determine age by sedimentary layer. If you ask a scientist how do you determine a layers age? Their answer will be they determine the age by fossils. Scientist use circular reasoning.
Where are all the half-evolved animals?(
No half evolved animals have ever been found and never will be. If scientists couldn't find any in the last 140 years, how will we find any in the future. We are a lot more advanced than we were over one hundred years ago. With all this technology we still can't find any evidence.
Fossils are not a reliable source of evidence for evolution. Scientist can't keep using fossils to try to prove evolution.
Debate Round No. 2


To be honest, I not expecting my opponent to jump on my first nitpick.
I am using Bayesian reasoning and it uses probability to determine how likely something is true based on the current evidence.
under this philosophy you say that "X has a 95% chance to be true", not "X is true".
Since Evolution has a lot of supporting evidence and a lack of conflicting evidence, it is safe to say that evolution is at least 99% likely to be true.

Actually fossils are not even close to being the strongest evidence.
Speciation is the strongest evidence since it directly tests the predictions of evolution And there is a lot of cases of Speciation too.
Therefore I deduce that the case for evolution would still stand without any fossils.

Also worth typing is that every fossils is an transitional fossil.
a good analogy for this is to point out that you are an transition between your parents and your children, and that your parents are the transition between you and your grandparents.

By saying their is half-evolved animals, you are implying there is fully animals (Which is false since evolution is an continuous process).
But that does matter anyway, since this claim is the same as the claim I refuted above.

Radiometric dating is used to determine the age of the rocks.
With some rare but possible exceptions, the oldest rocks will be at the bottom and the youngest be on top.
here's a link.


Bayesian reasoning is guessing.
When will scientist start using facts and stop guessing?
The best evidence for evolution to be true is still a guess.
We need facts please and stop guessing if you can.
Also wikipedia is an unreliable source of information.
There can be half-evolved animals even though it supposedly never stops. Time never stops but we still can measure it. With time we get one number and another number after that and we can measure the time within those two numbers. Why can't scientist get a monkey and a human and find the half-evolved animals? Scientist can do that with any animal.
We can find many sedimentary layers all over the world with hundreds of feet down. Where did all the r
Isn't it obvious that fish will be at the deepest layer because it is below sea level?
Arizona is not near the ocean but trilobites have been found there. Trilobites live at the bottom of the ocean so how did it end up in Arizona?
Arizona had to be covered with water to find trilobite.
How does evolution explain giant skeletons?
In this link it explains that the Smithsonian destroyed tens of thousands of giant skeletons to prove that evolution is real.
One of the biggest museums had to destroy evidence to prove evolution is correct.
please explain how evolution can prove these giants. No big monkey has been found as big as these giants.
This couldn't have been a random mutation when there have been ten of thousands of giant skeletons found.
Scientist don't talk about these giants. The giants have been found in America too.
Please don't guess for your rebuttal and use facts please, I think we will all appreciate that.
Debate Round No. 3


Isn't Bayesian reasoning assigning probabilities based on the current evidence, not on experience or guessing like your link says.
100% certainly is impossible as I explained in round 2. This makes your definition of fact useless since there is nothing I could be 100% sure about.

I was using Wikipedia to explain Bayesian reasoning, not to refute your arguments.

The claim that giant fossils has been destroyed has been completely made up as this link will explain.
Also AIAA probably not exist because of the lack of references that is not about the giants.

"Isn't it obvious that fish will be at the deepest layer because it is below sea level?"
I see my opponent ignored my point I made on round 3 about layers.
As for how the fossils got there.
after the trilobite got and covered and fossilized, are moved by the movement of the continents caused by plate tectonics.
Here's a link below.

a nitpick, but humans did not evolve from monkeys.

Your argument about half evolved animals seems to be the about the lack of Transitions.
Here's the "half evolved animals" from apes to Homo sapiens in the link below.


Giants have been found here in America. 18 remains have been found in Wisconsin. Others have been found in Ohio. Giant have been found all over America.
Lucy is false as a transitional creature.
a few of each animal or mammal will have different deformations. A women in Norway had a baby that looks like an elephant. Will scientist in the future say elephants came from humans just because of the baby that looks like an elephant. Lucy could have been a deformed animal. is also an unreliable website. That website is run by a married couple who have no background or experience in investigation. All they do is give their opinion on the topic.
The museum did in fact destroy the bones because scientist cannot prove evolution when giant remains have been found. Giants don't fit in the timeline of evolution.
It doesn't matter how you use wikipedia it is still unreliable.
Bayesian reasoning isn't good to help when it's assigning probabilities on current evidence. There is a 50% chance that the quarter will land on heads. The information is that there are two sides of one quarter and it will land on either heads or tails. If we use Bayesian reasoning assigning probabilities on the current evidence we should be able to figure out what side it will land on, right? We could say it will land on heads but then it ends up landing on tails. That was a guess based on evidence but it's wrong. This was just an educated guess, this is what scientist do to "prove" evolution, they just guess.
Debate Round No. 4


Huzlers is a terrible source of info since it is About satirical entertainment as shown in this statement found at the bottom of it's home page.
" is a combination of urban news and satirical entertainment to keep its visitors in a state of disbelief."
The picture is created by the Australian artist Patricia Piccinini.

The claims about are unsubstantiated assertions (Expect for the married couple part).

The claim that The giant fossils was destroyed is already refuted on round 4.
All 3 links above show that the pictures of fossils of giants have been edited in some way.

My opponents link about claims that Lucy has been faked, even though that is not the case the link below explains.

your analogy relies on a strawman of Bayesian reasoning since as I explained in round 3, it does not statements such as the "coin will land on head's" but it does statements such as "There is an 50% chance that the coin will land on heads".

So the people will vote after my opponent post for the last round, to I want the voter's to vote honestly based on evidence and not vote bomb because they want a certain side of the debate to win.


So your saying a news website is a "terrible source of info" just because its entertaining? Also the quote you used is an opinion.
You are using many unreliable sources. Even national geographic is using as their source of info. Word press is a blogging website where anyone can write what they want. Your links that you are using is using wikipedia and as their source of information and if you don't believe me then click on one and scroll down.
That's from the word press website, it has no facts. say that giants exist has already been refuted on round 4 by using as your source and I clearly proved that snopes is a biased website of a married couple in California, that is a very liberal state. You have no proof stating that the Smithsonian did not destroy giant remains. P
The link above explains that the Smithsonian did destroy the giant remains.
If you read the article you didn't explain the 1.3 meter long femur to be fake.
This link ^ is reliable because it does not get its info from snopes or wikipedia like your links that you have been using. The majority of my opponents links have been back up by biased websites.
If any of you voters have been on jury duty then you know that you decide based on evidence that you see and nothing from outside info. I ask you to do the same here. To all the voters I ask to put aside biased feelings and only look at the evidence that you see in this debate. As you can see that evolution has been a theory for the last 100 years and it still is a theory today. We shouldn't limited by what science says, lets be open-minded to ever possibility of how we got here.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
When you say evolution, do you mean macroevolution, microevolution, or both?
Posted by 430miletime 3 years ago
If you can't prove something then its wrong. Imagine if a person comes to you saying they time traveled, and then you ask let me see your time machine and the guy who claims to have time traveled says the machine is a secret and wont show you. Would you beleive that person? The person dosent have any proof of time travel. Without evidence how can you proof something? For your future debates I ask you to show proof of everything you say. If not then people who are reading the debates could easily mistake it as opinion.
Posted by Koupo275 3 years ago
I should mention that just because I have no that the museum didn't destroy fossils, it does mean it happen.
Posted by Koupo275 3 years ago
Can someone please explain to me what half-evolved animals are.
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 3 years ago
Posted by Koupo275 3 years ago
No, it is not okay to troll simply because it is not covered in the rules.

Maybe I should have title it "evolution is rationally defensible" instead.
Posted by Koupo275 3 years ago
No, it is not okay to troll simply because it is not covered in the rules.

Maybe I should have title it "evolution is rationally defensible" instead.
Posted by GamrDeb8rBbrH8r 3 years ago
Is it okay if I troll?
Posted by RetroToast 3 years ago
Anything is defensible you tw@
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago
The proposition: "God is Gay" is defensible. This debate has been won before it has started.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Squishy512 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I read the entire argument and Con seemed to have the stronger debate. He provided more sources and he made more points and provided more facts.