Evolution is a lie!
Debate Rounds (5)
We have observed macro evolution (speciation) both in the lad and in the field many times .
In the fossil record we see the transitions predicted in evolution .
The system of phylogenetics groups organisms by their shared characteristics and common DNA this was a system invented by a devout creationist  which shows the branching tree pattern predicted by Darwin.
These are just a very brief summery of long arguments but I doubt I will have to post anymore as it seems Pro has not returned to debate.org since posting this debate and appears to be a troll.
In Genesis, there was a great flood. There were only two of each animal on board--the rest died. And if you look at today, there are millions of dead things (fossils) buried in rock layers that appear to have water damage. You think it happened because of billions of years.* But in the Bible, it tells the generations from Adam down to Jesus, and (because it's been 2014 years since Jesus died) there are about 30, so if you multiply 30 by 100 (100 years for each person, but we know people die young!) and add 2000, it comes out to 5,000. But some lived more than 200 years back then, so it'll actually come out to around 6,500.
So, it turns out that you can believe God (the Bible), or the theories of men. So basically, if God is real, then automatically evolution isn't.
For the earth to just "appear" out of nowhere, there would have to be like a quadrillion if's! And for it to end up like now, every single one would have to be right! Come on, if an apple can't change into a banana in a billion years, nothing can't change into everything!
Last thing: Now, we all have the sense of right and wrong, right? How did that come into us?
*It only takes common sense to know that if bones sat in the ground for 70 billion years, they won't still be there!
Lack of Evidence for a Global Flood
So far no serious evidence for a global flood has been provided. My opponent's best attempt was the claim that fossils prove that there was a global flood this is refuted easily because fossils are only found in places which would have had the exact right conditions at the time which are typically around coastlines, on certain types of usually sandy sea floor, around flood planes and river deltas.
Pro claims that if the fossils were 70 billion years old they wouldn't still be here this is obviously true as I am not aware of anything that can remain intact for 70 billion years, but as fossils are typically 1-1000 million years old they are at most 70 times if not 70,000 times more recent than pro claims. Pro's claim is shown to be even stranger because all the evidence points to the universe as we know it beginning around 13.798 billion years.
Noah's ark wouldn't possibly work, first a wooden boat would not work because a boat that size would give enough length for the timbers to bend letting in water. Second that amount of animals would require many thousands of tonnes of food and in the case of many species (like adder snakes) that food would have to be live and in the case of many more animals that food would be meat which goes off quickly causing problems on a six month journey. The last problem is that only having only two animals of one species (or whatever a "kind" is) would mean that there would not be enough genetic diversity to propagate the species past a few generations.
Problems With Calculation
Your entire calculation is based on numbers from the bible furthermore I would like to know why you assign one hundred years to the life of one person since we know average life span at that time was more like 26  and I'm not even convinced that humans living over 130 years is even feasible because of ever shortening telomeres.
It is Possible to Believe in God and Evolution
The majority of the worlds Christians accept evolution showing that it is not just possible to believe in god and evolution but in the Christian god and evolution. Remember there are other gods other than the Christian one and the bible is not the worlds only holy book.
Also all the evidence seems to point towards gods non-existence.
The Earth Appeared from Nowhere
It didn't we understand the formation of the earth very well and that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution which only deals with how genetic diversity and adaptation to environment in organisms come about.
Sense of Right and Wrong
That is actually explained by evolution much better than any antiquated philosophy, a community that had individuals that shared a sense of morality would propagate itself better than other communities.
Your Argument Does not Address Evolution
Nothing in your argument actually addresses evolution which is simply how genetic diversity and adaptation to environment in organisms come about through evolution through natural selection by decent with modification. We have evolution in reality in thousands of examples (here are a few   ).
This is why evolution isn't only false, but is bad to believe for Christians: If you believe evolution, you doubt Genesis, because you think "maybe we can add millions of years to the Bible...", and if you believe that, you start to doubt that God created the earth because "if the men were right about millions of years, they were probably right about this..." then you doubt the rest of the Bible. Then you doubt that God exists! This is what has brought thousands of Christians to not be Christian anymore.
Noah's Ark: The Bible says in Genesis 6:14 (in most translations) that the ark was made of Gopher wood. This type of wood was probably very strong, but it could refer to another type of tree. If it is real, it's extinct. Anyway, it was definitely supported from the inside.
As for the meat-eating animals on the ark: Just because they have sharp teeth, that doesn't mean they only eat meat. Like the Panda, which has sharp teeth and eats bamboo. Genesis 1:30 says all animals were originally vegetarian. Bears, which eat meat and berries and other plants.
Sense of right and wrong: No, we all have the same sense of right and wrong. But where did it come from?
Universe is 13.798 Billion Years Old
Evidence seems to suggest that the universe expanded from a singularity 13.798 billion years ago  and the earth can be dated to around 4.54 billion years .
How Long Can Fossils Last
Fossils appear rarer the further back in time (essentially the further down) you go. Now remember in order for a fossil to be preserved it must be burred quickly and this takes away most bones instantly because most bones are not burred quickly. When a bone is berried it takes away almost all erosion which mainly comes from particles carried in the wind, further more a berried bone is not susceptible to biological erosion through micro organisms meaning that almost all erosion is removed.
Causes the Sheep to Question
You claim evolution is a negative belief because it causes Christians to question their beliefs and I say good, I am an ex-creationist and now atheist. Atheism is the more rational position and the one that is less likely to make you commit horrific acts and by horrific acts, when a person is gullible enough to believe absurdities they are gullible enough to commit atrocities
As strength increases how brittle the wood is also increases so if gopher even existed (for which no other reference is given apart to a seemingly poorly translated bible passage) a boat made out of it would not twist and leak but simply rip apart in the flood water. Also support from the inside doesn't matter, every attempt to make a wooden boat even half the size of the ark was supposed to be ends up twisting and ripping itself apart or twisting the timbers and letting on water.
All the Animals on Noah's Ark Were Vegitaian
A cat cannot eat plant material, their enternal organs are not compatible with a herbivore niche. Furthermore a bacterium that has to target an animal to eat and acquire amino acids cannot ever have been vegetarian. Finally there are many organisms (like tarantula wasps) that have to kill and consume other organisms as part of their reproductive process.
Sense of Right and Wrong
I already explained this, a group that had moral values would be more likely to propagate more effectively than a group that didn't and through the process of evolution through natural selection the group with morality would spread their genes throughout the population. Also we don't all have the same moral values, I for instance don't think that I have the right to control another persons body and so I don't think it's moral for people to prevent abortion or prohibit any kind of drugs or for that matter prohibit polygamy or homosexual marriage or incest, as you appear to be a fundamentalist Christian you have a tendency to thinking that a more authoritarian form of government is moral and therefore we almost certianally have a different morality.
Still Not Addressing Evolution
Evolution is by no means incompatible with the genesis account. To prove evolution wrong you would have to prove one of the following:
1. Mutations do not occur (they do ).
2. Those mutations cannot be beneficial (they can ).
3. Those beneficial mutations cannot be passed on (they can ).
4. An organism with a benefit mutation is no more likely to survive to reproduce than an organism without the mutation (this is true by definition).
 http://eldora.as.arizona.edu... (this is relativly easy to understand I suggest pro read it)
How long fossils can last:
Yes, but...nothing could stay intact for even 5 thousand years!
You have no proof of that. There have been big wooden boats before that didn't rip apart, right? (8 minutes left)
Sense of right and wrong:
Yes, but people that control other people's body (and other things) know inside that it is wrong.
I don't have time to counter the other things right now. I will in my next argument.
Sense of Right and Wrong
First I have to say that evolution does not need to offer an explanation of right and wrong any more that gravity does.
Natural selection is not about the survival of individual organisms but instead the survival of genes. In the ancient past of our species we lived in very small tribal groups and in this position it makes sense to make sacrifices to further the survival of the tribe as a whole because the tribe as a whole carries very similar genes.
Morality also seems to have a component of one person doing something for someone else in the hope that they will return that favour. In a small tribal communing this makes sense but in the modern world it doesn't but as we carry the same genes and aspects of the same culture and so obey rules that no longer make sense (on a survival basis).
That is how morality most likely arose. In modern years many people have attempted to make moral systems which benefit all humans and this seems to be how morality will progress in the future.
We don't all have the same sense of right and wrong I showed that last time with the examples of me and you.
No, the worlds biggest ever wooden boat was the Wyoming which was 450 feet in length, the ark (which evidently don't exist) "was" about 500 feet in length, the Wyoming ripped itself apart in the seas because the wood twisted apart.
Still Not Addressing Evolution
My opponent has not addressed evolution through natural selection with mendelian genetics throughout his entire argument and I would guess that he doesn't even know what evolution is.
cMitchell13 forfeited this round.
A341 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not touch upon evolution, he was arguing strawman arguments (arguments Con). Pro was using strawman arguments, which is poor conduct (Conduct Con). Con used two sources the entire debate, both from biased sources. Con used quite a few sources, and they were more reliable (Sources Con).
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.