The Instigator
DiegoJuan403
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jkgraves735
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is a lie

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 88948
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

DiegoJuan403

Pro

Evolution can be easily debunked as a theory

My points
-If humans were evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys
-If humans were evolved from monkeys wouldn't monkeys be turning to humans today
-Homo Sapien was found about 100,00 years ago in southwest Asia
-about 4000 years ago if you start with 7 people you add all major wars and diseases you will get about 7 billion people
-4000 years ago isn't when evolution started

Evolution is a hoax and should be thought in school because its invalid.
jkgraves735

Con

Before we begin, I would like to point out my opponent has the burden of proof for this.

Let me address his points

1) If humans were evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys (sic)

Evolution does not teach that we evolved from monkeys, but it does teach that monkeys and humans come from a common ancestor far in the past. Then, we split off. Totally different idea.

2) If humans were evolved from monkeys wouldn't monkeys be turning to humans today (sic)

Again... the monkeys-are-not-our-ancestors thing.

3) Homo Sapien was found about 100,00 years ago in southwest Asia (sic)

Yes, this is consistent with migration theories... so I am not sure how this shows evolution is a lie... especially since that 100,000 years is way before the YEC views my opponent seems to hold.

4) about 4000 years ago if you start with 7 people you add all major wars and diseases you will get about 7 billion people (sic)

Ok? How do you know that? What math did you come up with for that? The primary reason for our high population is our sudden explosion in technological and medical advances... nothing to do with some bunk form of population compound interest.

5) 4000 years ago isn't when evolution started

Yes... you are correct. It started with the first life form over a billion years ago.


I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
DiegoJuan403

Pro

It takes one fact to debunk a theory so I will use facts.

-If humans begain 50,000 years ago then there would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people.
-FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD"S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT"OVER 6.5 BILLION.
-Evolutionists teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to each higher branches, so their necks became longer. In other words, need promotes evolution. However, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. There's also the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin.

Those are my three points

http://allendra3.deviantart.com...
https://answersingenesis.org...
jkgraves735

Con

"It takes one fact to debunk a theory so I will use facts."

The problem is: no that's not true, and my opponent did not use any facts to begin with.

Let's look at these arguments again

-"If humans begain 50,000 years ago then there would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people." (sic)

I'm suspicious of this number. And I will show quite simply why this makes zero sense.

1. It relies on, as I thought, modern population estimates of the last 150 years... and that's it. And that is primarily based on, as I said, modern technology and medicine.

2. It took 1,000 years from the aproximate population of the world to go from 170,000,000 to 254,000,000. That's an increase of only only about 67%... in a thousand years. Far behind the 200% increase every 150 years my opponent offers. Bad argument

-FROM TWO PEOPLE, CREATED ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO, AND THEN THE EIGHT PEOPLE, PRESERVED ON THE ARK ABOUT 4,500 YEARS AGO, THE WORLD"S POPULATION COULD EASILY HAVE GROWN TO THE EXTENT WE NOW SEE IT"OVER 6.5 BILLION.

Same population issue as before. It's not just math. There's a lot of factors that go into it.

-Evolutionists teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to each higher branches, so their necks became longer. In other words, need promotes evolution. However, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. There's also the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin.


I am a little... put off by this argument. So I will explain it as simply as possible

It takes far longer than 19 generations or 4,000 years to see changes.

And not only that, this is a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

But I do not want to explain it to my opponent, I'd rather have him explain evolution.

All humans, until the 8th week of development, have a tail. After which the WNT3A gene takes over and they tail is lost... in other words... we have a gene to make a tail and a gene that destroys the tail the other genes made.

So if God created us in our present form, why is it that he created us to have a tail and then make a gene to destroy it.

Doesn't it make more sense we changed genetically to lose the tail?

Sources:

http://worldpopulationhistory.org...
http://www.genecards.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
DiegoJuan403

Pro

If Evolution started 100,000 years ago the world's population would be more than 7 billion so therefore not possible.
jkgraves735

Con

Well, it does not appear that my opponent actually read my rebuttals and arguments. He has merely continued to restate his point after I showed it to be ludicrous.

Good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: red_x// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: con just used better grammar, and he was able to prove all of pros arguments wrong.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does not explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The explanation is overgeneralized, failing to assess specific points made by either side. The voter appears to make their decision based solely on the success of Pro's arguments, which requires some burdens analysis. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The arguments of one side have to be difficult to read in order to award this point " individual errors are insufficient by themselves.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: stschiffman// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I felt Con was little insulting, especially in the last round, which is why Pro gets the better conduct point. Other than that, all points go to Con, especially convincing arguments and reliable sources. I also gave Con the spelling and grammar point because Pro wrote "Evolution is a hoax and should be thought in school because its invalid."

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain arguments and sources, merely restating those decisions. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The arguments of one side have to be difficult to read in order to award this point " individual errors are insufficient by themselves. (3) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter has to directly reference the conduct issue and not merely allude to it.
************************************************************************
Posted by DiegoJuan403 8 months ago
DiegoJuan403
Thanks 4 the tips jkgraves735
Posted by jkgraves735 8 months ago
jkgraves735
My greatest tip would be to accept mainstream science and enter the modern world. :)
Posted by DiegoJuan403 8 months ago
DiegoJuan403
i lose but u did a damn good job any tips?
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Since the link didn't work--as the site does not accept brackets in links--I have modified it:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
@zoodook21:

You should not vote on that basis alone. The purpose of the ballot is deciding a "winner" based on how each side responds to the arguments. While, in this case, I think Con's response was sufficient, in the scenario that a certain person's response was *not* sufficient, nobody should vote on that basis. Furthermore, regardless of either side's understanding of evolution, a judge should not be "interventionist"--which means a judge should not use their own outside knowledge to intervene in the debate to whatever extent possible. In this website, judges are usually expected to be "tabula rasa" judges, or "tab" judges.

Wikipedia explains:

"This is the Latin phrase that translates to clean slate, tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm."

https://en.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)#Tabula_Rasa

Essentially, a "tabula rasa" judge, or a "blank slate" judge, is a voter who pretends to not know anything about the topic at hand. That is widely considered ideal--and judges should attempt to remain non-interventionist to whatever extent possible, regardless of their personal opinion of the truth or falsehood of the arguments at hand. This is about who "won" the debate or who had "better" arguments compared to the other--not about whether a certain side's arguments were inaccurate regardless of whatever the other side responded.

Hope that helps!
Posted by ZakOak 8 months ago
ZakOak
If americans came from europe why are there still europeans?
Posted by shoggs999 8 months ago
shoggs999
the belief that evolution is need based (the Giraffe example that Pro uses) is Lamark's theory it isnt Darwins theory which is the one that is commonly accepted
NB: DiegoJuan403 it is people like you that make this site more interesting but unfortunately I don't think your right on this one
Posted by zookdook1 8 months ago
zookdook1
Pro has very litle understanding of how evolution works. I'm already voting Con here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.