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

Evolution is a fact

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 676 times Debate No: 31534
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Two points.

1. Evolution is a cornerstone of science.
2. Creationism is quack science.


Hello there. I accept this challenge to defend my faith. First off I would like to start by letting you know that if you vote yes to this, you are calling Abraham Lincoln, George Washington of the US, and many of England's finest leaders quacks. Second, I think you misjudge us. Most Christians are not fanatics who go around preaching everyone's doom! If somebody follows Jesus the way they're suppose to, they'll preach his love to all, not his hate and wrath like the religious pharisees did. Third, I saw on your description you are a rebel. You won't give in to God easily for many reasons one of which is enjoyment of all the things you like to do. So I will talk about enjoyment, or pleasure. God created it! How could something so diverse and complex happen any other way? Every person enjoys different things. Some like to jump off cliff with a trampoline beneath them whilst others prefer a good book. Something like this could not have just evolved! Otherwise we would all have it much closer to the same. Look at the apes, and all other animals for that matter they are all very much the same, sure they very slightly, but overall they are very alike. He made enjoyment an there will be plenty in heaven of every type to go around. So for these reasons I say please vote no.
Debate Round No. 1



Red Herring

My opponent throws a Red Herring in my path, and this argument I gladly rebut.

Most of the early leaders were deist, not Christian. This is a heavy subject of debate.

Lincoln never made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs.[1]

Washington was a Freemason, this organization has beliefs counter to Christianity.[2][3]

This is not related to the core of the argument, and is thus termed a Red Herring.

Second Red Herring

My opponent states that Christianity is good. I will gladly debate this topic at a different time, for now the subject is science vs creationism.

This is not related to the core of the argument, and is thus termed a Red Herring.

Ad hominem

My opponent attacks my character, which is a logical fallacy and improper debate technique. Point goes to me for conduct, by default.

Pleasure and Power

Most items of pleasure are based on primal instincts shared by most mammals. The sex drive, instinct to mate, is of central importance. What is more fun than sex? Not much.

Perhaps leading the pack is more fun than sex. Some seek power and fame which results in sex in the primal state of mankind. Some seek power in its own right, simply because nature decrees that power is good.

The seeking of power goes against Christian principles, which were formed during the occupation of the known world by the Romans. To seek power meant death, so they taught not to seek power.

Note the change from the OT teaching of conquest. This ended with the occupation of the Persians, the conquering army. Oh the irony. Their god stopped telling them to go to war because there was no hope for winning.

Fight or Flight

My opponent made a suggestion similar to bungee jumping, so I will address bungee jumping. Adrenaline is the source of this pleasure. This comes from the primal Fight or Flight instinct.


Interplay between Religion and Science

"Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution... Other religions have different deity-led creation myths, while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings."[4]

Since the Theory of Evolution took the stage, creationism has changed in form to combat the threat of knowledge from science. Much like the church fought the Copernican Revolution because the Earth was supposedly central to God's plan. The sun cannot be the center of the solar system because religion has an opinion.

Eventually the church caught up with science, but in this case religion finds itself challenged at the very base level. Please note that my opponent is not debating evolution on its merits. The focus of this debate is evolution.

Semantics of the word Theory

Note that the laymen often uses a semantic attack on the Theory of Evolution, stating that a theory is simply a "guess." Note that in science, the word Theory is used in the sens of the word theorem. A guess would be the beginning of a hypothesis, which is a formal guess. After much testing, a hypothesis can be developed into a Theory.

The Theory of Gravity and Theory of Relativity are two other well known theories.

Strength of Evolution

The ability of DNA to change in drastic amounts is well known. The domesticated dog is well known to have descended from the Gray Wolf. Every dog, from the 250lb English Mastiff and the 6lb Chiwawa are descended from the gray wolf.

The connection between humans and other mammals is of primary importance in this debate. Sexual reproduction "...may increase the rate of evolution."[5] Vestigial Traits and Embryo formation present a very strong case for evolution.

Vestigial Traits

Vestigial Traits: Tailbone[6]

Very obvious. Tails. Apes.

Vestigial Traits: Wisdom Teeth[7]

Neanderthals had larger jaws and smaller brains. As the brain expanded, the jaw shrunk, the wisdom teeth had nowhere to go.
"Currently, wisdom teeth have become useless and even harmful to the extent where surgical procedures are often done to remove them."[7]

Vestigial Traits: Backaches[8]

Look at the backbone of the horse. It is curved like a suspension bridge. The forward feet are one post, the back feet are another post, and the hanging backbone is a very strong structure.

When homo sapiens first walked upright, they had a curved backbone. From an engineering perspective, the homo sapiens backbone should be a straight rod.

Vestigial Traits: Unsupported intestines[8]

The muscles of the stomach are developed with the assumption of four-legged walking. The pelvis barely supports the guts. The stomach muscles are core to supporting them, and have lost their role in the modern world.

Vestigial Traits: Choking[8]

Vestigial Traits: Obesity[8]

Etc etc etc.

Embryo formation.[9]

Many embryos look the same in early stages of development.[9]

Creationism is a Quack Science

The more polite term is pseudoscience.

Wikipedia states[10] that "The scientific consensus, supported by a 2006 statement by 68 national and international science academies, is that it is evidence-based fact derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines that the universe has existed for around 13.8 billion years and that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, with life first appearing at least 2.5 billion years ago. Although many young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modeled through an interpretation of the scientific method, the consensus among scientists is that creation science is unscientific in both conception and methodology."

The Institute for Creation Research is a Fraud

"Its work in the field of creation science has been rejected by the scientific community."[11]

Unfortunately, "it has been significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought in the United States by introducing creation science through churches and religious schools, and by engaging in public debates against supporters of evolution."[11]




Wow, that's quite a large amount of work you put into that. Thanks for reading my post, I find that rather honorable. First off my comments were not red herrings they simply had to do with your first post. So if my post had nothing to do with the topic; yours before that (Obviously trying to insult my belief.) Had nothing to do with the topic either. I did not insult your character, I did not try to, and I'm very sorry if you took insult to it. I was trying to show you, through you how much you yourself are following Gods plan for you whether you try to rebel or not. You spoke of dogs, How can you say they are evidence of evolution? They disprove evolution! They are still dogs, no matter how they change. Big ones small ones, they are still part of the same family. The are definitely not a tiger or some other strange creature. Micro-evolution is true but evolution is not. You can distinguish between the two by referring to genetics. If we are talking about a species within the genetic code, we talk about micro-evolution. This is how many wild dogs became tame ones.
You still never addressed the pleasure of reading. no animals can read, they never will! So no evolving will ever cause them to. Which leads me to believe God created us this way too. With a bigger mind set. As far as power goes, why should a religion still exist that does not go for power when it can. According to this world, Christianity should have died out long ago and not survived to this point. Yet here it is, almost as strong as ever! You asked what is better then sexual pleasure. I have an answer. Knowing God. I know God and love him, he always there for me. If evolution turns out to be correct when I get to heaven I will not say OK God I'm leaving here for hell. No, I'll stay there with him. Many do not know God and I promise that is why many stay with evolution and try to insult Christians. Each creature in the world is deigned the exact way it is supposed to be. My last comment is this, you used wiki as your source! That's not reliable! Anybody can write on there!
Debate Round No. 2


I accept my opponent's apology in the attack on my character.

Third Red Herring

"According to this world, Christianity should have died out long ago and not survived to this point."

This is a debate for another time.

Regarding sources

I have cited 11 articles, my opponent has cited none. In this round I have cited 12 sources, for a total of 23 sources. The point for sources is mine by default.

A discussion of the specifics is not possible in this debate as this is the final round. I would welcome further dialog regarding the specifics of the articles I cited.

Critique of Spelling and Grammar

Point for Spelling and Grammar should rightfully be awarded to me.

From my opponent:

"First off I would like to start by letting you know that if you vote yes to this, you are calling Abraham Lincoln, George Washington of the US, and many of England's finest leaders quacks." - This is a run on sentence.

"So if my post had nothing to do with the topic; yours before that (Obviously trying to insult my belief.)" - Parenthetical statements are discouraged, also incorrect capitalization.

"You spoke of dogs, How can you say they are evidence of evolution?" - This is incorrect capitalization.

"You still never addressed the pleasure of reading. no animals can read, they never will!" - This is incorrect capitalization.

"The are definitely not a tiger or some other strange creature." - The correct word is "They" rather than "The."

Genetics of the Domesticated Dog

My opponent does not understand the current body of scientific research, as illustrated by this comment: "This is how many wild dogs became tame ones."

There are no "wild dogs" as my opponent contends, simply the Gray Wolf. This is a major point in this debate.

The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago.[1][2]

Nowadays, based on a growing body of anatomical, genetic, and behavioral evidence, most experts believe that the dog originated exclusively from a single species: the gray wolf, Canis lupus.[3]

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.... In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.[4]

Modern genetic data, however, has proven that the gray wolf (Canis lupus) is the sole ancestor of modern dogs[5]

Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs.[6]

Any source my opponent cites in the following round to refute this point should be examined to see the age of the source. As I have no opportunity to refute said source, the reader should keep in mind that more recent research tends to be more accurate than older research.

Other Arguments

My opponent did not cite a source for this statement: "Micro-evolution is true but evolution is not."

My opponent's statement is incorrect: "If we are talking about a species within the genetic code, we talk about micro-evolution." Actually, all species are within the genetic code. All species have DNA. For more details, do a Google search for Phylogenetic Tree.

Argument of Poor Design

The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is proof of natural selection.[11] This point cannot be overstated.

All following points are quoted from Wikipedia.[12] All points should be debated on the merits. Not simply that my opponent does not like Wikipedia. If the point is a good point, it stands. A bad point should be refuted. I challenge my opponent to refute any of the following flaws in "design."

Various vestigial body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales (evolution says the ancestor of whales lived on land) or the third molar - or 'wisdom teeth' - in humans (whereas some other primates with differing jaw shapes make use of the third molar).

Many species have strong instincts to behave in response to a certain stimulus. Natural selection can leave animals behaving in detrimental ways when they encounter supernormal stimuli - like a moth flying into a flame.

Plants are green and not black, even though black plants would absorb more light energy.

The loss of tetrachromatic vision by mammals as compared to other tetrapods.

The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches

In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.

Pleasure of Reading

Man is a social creature. Works that are primary social are more of interest to the average person because they relate to his/her species.

Note that "of the people who buy at least one book at year, 8 out of 10 buy a fiction book."[7]

It is apparent that few would be interested in reading a book on algebra, but many would be interested in a novel regarding a hero and his quest. This ties in to my point about the pack leader.

My opponent stated that "no animals can read, they never will!"
A more interesting argument would be that no animals can write, which is required for reading. Think of cave paintings though. These are the precursor to writing. Note that animals paint.[8]

Language is the precursor to writing. Animals know language.

Specifically, Washoe was a female chimpanzee who was the first non-human to learn to communicate using American Sign Language.[9][10]

Vote Pro.




Levi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
The majority of Americans would agree with you.
Posted by giraffelover 3 years ago
I disagree with you and that's fine. Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. I think Evolution's incorrect, so I reject it. You believe it is correct, so you accept it. It's that simple.
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
I have nothing to add to this discussion.
Posted by giraffelover 3 years ago
It's a bird, so it has wings. The ostrich inherited wings because it has bird DNA. Arms would do nicely, but ostriches don't have DNA for arms. As for wisdom teeth they would act as regular teeth.
The giraffe's laryngeal nerve has a purpose, so what does it matter if you think it could be crammed into a smaller area?
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
The laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is is 15 feet long, because it goes from the head, all the way down to the heart, and then back up to the head. There is no connection to the heart or anything near it. The length of the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe should be a few inches.

Do you need wings for balance? Don't arms do nicely? Why don't ostrichs have arms like you?

People have wisdom teeth removed on a routine basis.
Posted by giraffelover 3 years ago
I disagree about the giraffe's nerve being poor design. I think it's used for input/output like a TV, except with one two-way cable rather than two one-way cables. As for the ostrich, it NEEDS it's wings for balance when running at top speed. Penguins also use wings for swimming.
As for vestigial parts, just because we don't know the purpose of a part doesn't mean it has none. That's the SAME logic used against Creationists: Just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean God did it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.