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

Evolution is a lie.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/19/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 42654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Evolution is a lie. Consider the fact that evolution was never heard of till darwin was born and before that and for years and years till the Enlgihtment when darwin was born creationism was consider a fact. Since the evolutionary agruement was that evolution is a fact that the idea of a creator is fairy tale is offen used. I will start round one in backlashing that evolutionary arguement. Since darwin created evolution ( evolution was never heard of before darwin arived. Hmm. Darwin was a man. At one point he belived in crationism. Saying creatiomism believers are stupid would be the same as saying Charles Darwin is stupid cause Charles Darwin was at one point a Creationist. So saying creatiomism is a lie and creationists are crazy, thats yourselves saying Darwin was crazy. So go ahead . Call your therorys founder crazy.


I would like to welcome my opponent and extend my hopes for a great debate!

My opponent's entire argument consists of two points, which I will now refute.

1. My opponent claims that evolution is a lie because it was never heard of until Darwin. There are significant problems with this argument.

People had never heard of Harry Potter until J.K Rowling wrote the books. Does that make the books a lie?
People had never heard of President Obama until he was born. Does that make him a lie?

One of the primary purposes of science is to examine the unknown. To claim that anything resulting from that process is a lie undermines the entire purpose of making the unknown known.

2. My opponent claims that evolution is a lie because Darwin was at one point a creationist. Now, there is evidence that Darwin was a creationist and even used God as the explanation for evolution in his Origin of Species [1]. I will return to this point later in my argument. The main refutation needed here is that nobody is perfect. My opponent's argument that attacking creationists is the same as attacking Darwin is equivalent to attacking vegetarians because Hitler was a vegetarian [2]. This is not an invocation of Godwin's law - it is an accurate comparison because I am not comparing Hitler/Nazis so much as their criticisms. Just because people believe or believed one thing does not mean all their beliefs are negated, especially when they naturally change through research and education. Additionally, Darwin went out and studied. His own experiments changed his beliefs.

Now I will begin with my own arguments.

Contention 1: Evolutionism and the idea of God are compatible.

Evolution does not inherently disprove the concept of God. God is an abstract concept; evolution is a well-supported theory. There are many theists (such as myself) who still believe in evolution [3]. But this is not a debate about the existence of God.

Contention 2: Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory.

Science has produced a staggering amount of evidence in support of evolution.

A: Radiocarbon dating allows archaeologists to chronologically categorise fossils and the like based on isotopes [4].

B: Fossils serve as concrete evidence of our ancestors, as well as other organisms in the past, and we can see how we've changed since then [5]. Consider the linked example completing a Neanderthal genome or Lucy [6], the iconic example of an early hominid.

C: Genetics allows scientists to study the uniqueness of each individual through DNA. DNA is essential to the study of evolution, as it demonstrates the differences and similarities between species. Consider the close relations between humans and chimpanzees, bonobos, and other primates [7].

I will save my other arguments for round 2. In the meantime, I look forward to my opponent's responses!

Debate Round No. 1


Whiteevan12 forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited the previous round, so I extend all my arguments. In addition, I will introduce one new one here.

Contention 3: Microevolution has been demonstrated to exist.

My opponent's resolution (and arguments) does not specify between micro and macroevolution. As both are forms of evolution, and the resolution calls evolution a lie, if I prove the existence of microevolution, I disprove the resolution.

Microevolution refers to variations within a given type/species. John Morris lists natural selection as one example of microevolution, whereby undesired traits in a given species are weeded out [1]. Dog breeding is another example of microevolution.

I also wish to refine my refutation to my opponent's first argument. People have taken issue with my examples because Harry Potter is still a fictional character. I was arguing against the reasoning behind my opponent's argument - that things that were not known at the beginning (where this is, I do not know) are lies. I do not believe this is a straw man fallacy, but in the event it is, I shall provide another example.

We did not know about gravity (we knew we stuck to the ground but not why or the principles behind it) until it was studied, but that does not make gravity a lie.

I hope my opponent returns for the third round!

Debate Round No. 2


Whiteevan12 forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited again. Please extend all my arguments and vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
I considered that, which is why I posted the example of a work rather than Harry Potter itself. I couldn't use another theory because one of my points is that science, after all, is theory. It would have seemed hypocritical and been too easy for my opponent to deny. Science can never claim something with 100% certainty - only faith can do that.
Posted by Kuma 2 years ago
If you'll allow me to clarify what I believe Jacob meant.

Your argument that the author's lack of existence does not invalidate his work is sound, but the example you used to assert this argument is one of fiction. Harry Potter (and not the arguably fictional concept/existence of witches and wizards thus far) did NOT exist prior to Rowling's work, as it is the result of her imagination. This is of course assuming that she did not plagiarize her work in its entirety from a source outside of herself, though even then the source material would NOT have existed prior to the original author's conception of it.

Using Einstein's theory of relativity, E=MC^2, would have been a more sound argument rather than citing a work of fiction, as gravity has been present far before Newton or Einstein ever theorized anything about it.
Posted by DougIsRight 2 years ago
Depending on how you want to interpret it, the opening argument's supposition regarding evolution not existing before Darwin, and therefore evolution cannot account for Darwin himself is an example of either the Historian's fallacy[1] or the circular cause and consequence fallacy, or both.

Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
It's the same concept, Jacob. My opponent semi-distinguished the work from the maker, so I listed one example of a work and it's maker and one example of a maker. E=mc squared is to Einstein what Harry Potter is to Rowling.
Posted by Jacob60rt 2 years ago
Con's rebuttal stating that: (1) 1. My opponent claims that evolution is a lie because it was never heard of until Darwin. There are significant problems with this argument.

People had never heard of Harry Potter until J.K Rowling wrote the books. Does that make the books a lie?
People had never heard of President Obama until he was born. Does that make him a lie?

This is not sound but an example like the famous e=mc squared created by Albert Einstein is not false just because no one heard of it before was born. To state someone's work will be more intuitive then just stating if the person's existence is a lie. I know this is a pointless rant but still a flaw that I want to point out. I see were con's was going but he did not go in the right direction.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 2 years ago
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: Forfeit.