The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Lupricona
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Evolution is a sound scientific concept

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 4 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,917 times Debate No: 44049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (57)
Votes (4)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hi i would like to have a interesting debate about this topic!
I would like to debate that the theroy of evolution is sound.

1.Use logic
2.First round acceptance.
3.Second round opening.
4.Third rebuttals.
5.Closeing statements/rebuttals.
Failure to comply with the above will result in full 7 points to opponent,
Thanks,:)
Lupricona

Con

I accept with also providing a definition for Evolution.

The General Theory of Evolution: The theory that all life comes from random, natural processes. This includes everything from Cosmology to Biology (i.e. Big Bang to Neo-Darwinian evolution.)

I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking debate. Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

“The theory that all life comes from random, natural processes.

Hello , Im afraid con has provided a inadequate definition for evolution.

This might be a good indication that Con doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a part in evolution, but this completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection which is very opposite of chance. Certain randomness, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. Natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are kept, and less successful variations Die out. When the environment changes different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations die out quicker, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.


Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of first life) due purely to chance. But I will be attempting to prove that Evolution is a sound scientific concept we are not debating abiogenesis.

Perhaps one from the Oxford Dictionary will suffice as it is a credible source.

“evolution”

Syllabification: ev·o·lu·tion

Pronunciation: /G6;evəG2;loV2;oSHən

/

“NOUN

· 1the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin’s theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology”

Let’s proceed to my case for how Evolution is a sound scientific concept.

Now take note I will not be debating if Evolution is true simply if Evolution is a sound scientific concept.

Further definitions.

sound 2 (sound) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

adj. sound·er, sound·est

5.

a. Based on valid reasoning: a sound observation.

b. Free from logical flaws: sound reasoning.

Scientific Concept

The scientific theory, principal or law that is the basis of your lab. It is an explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs or a logical, mathematical statement describing the consistency that applies to the phenomenon.

http://labwrite.ncsu.edu...

The science of evolution.

Evolution is as firmly established as the fact that water is made up of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen At the core of Evolution the idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time through various processes and natural selection Overwhelming evidence supports this.

.Observed instances of Evolution

Yes scientists have been able to observe Evolution takeing place an excellent example of evolution in action is a 14-year experiment done with Anolis lizards.(Losos et al, 1997) A single species of Anolis lizards was spread across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. Over the time of the experiment, each of the lizards adapted to their environments. Several new species of lizards evolved. The lizards had changed their body shape in response to the flora in their environment. Scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results.

Vaccines are constantly changing because, the viruses keep evolving to the vaccines and actually become resistant to them this is called natural selection only the fittest survive.What about new species actually arising from evolution (which is called speciation)? Well, for some plant species can actually arise through evolution, even in as little as one generation. An observation of speciation involving plants, was a study done by Hugo de Vries. He was studying the genetics of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and discovered that a new variant evolved that could not breed with the Oenothera Lamarckiana, and had a different amount of chromosomes. This means, a brand new species evolved, that was observed in a laboratory over long periods of time the new species is named O. gigas.)

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Bacteria are able to build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. Iin every colony of bacteria, there are few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics this is survival of the fittest then resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

Evidence & the fossil record.

We have observed the fossil record, and found a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another from very simple single celled organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms which is indicative of incremental evolution. You cannot examine the fossil record and interpret the evidence as pointing towards anything other but evolution evolution and common descent are the only logically acceptable conclusions that are supported by evidence.

Not only is the fossil record a solid piece of evidence suggesting evolution is certainly but it becomes even more convincing when it is combined with other evidence for evolution such as biogeography if evolution is true, we would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography, the phylogenetic tree, and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.We find that some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent.

If evolution did happen, then we would expect that the fossil record would show a succession of organisms as such it appears that the order of development for vertebrate animals was

Fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals.The fossil record should show the same order of development and it shows exactly that.

We should also find the fossil record showing characteristics that are intermediate in nature between different organisms that evolved.Birds are most closely related to reptiles, so we can find fossils which show a mix of bird and reptile characteristics. Fossilized organisms that posses intermediate characteristics are called transitional fossils .

Prediction Genetic change.

Extensive genetic change has been observed. We have seen genomes heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

Conclusion

There are simply no reasons in terms of either philosophy or science to deny the fact that evolution has been occurring for a very long time and is still occurring today, while there is a wellspring of evidence to support that Evolution is a sound scientific concept.
Vote Pro.
sources.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com...

http://www.historyofvaccines.org...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.agiweb.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

https://www.boundless.com...

Lupricona

Con

Standards of Logic

My opponent asks that we use logic for this debate. I agree with this, as this is obviously needed for intelligent debate and discussion. However, I ask where my opponent gets his standard for logic. Allow me to expound on what I mean by this:

Logic is reasoning conducted in order to discover objective truth.

However, as Darwin stated, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (1)


This is to say, if logic is just a human concept; a societal construct, and we are animals that are here by the means of chance and evolution, how can we trust our mind? Why should we trust the way that we perceive reality? How do we know that our minds are rational? What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism for our survival?

On the other hand, if a being exists that trancends our universe, one who has a rational and intelligent mind, and then created mankind to be rational, then based on this paradigm, logic is a trustworthy mechanism for understanding truth.

As shown, the preconception that logic is trustworthy and rational only works under a theistic paradigm. Now, one can claim that there is no god, and our perceptions are just us observing reality, but ultimately, we can never have any amount of confidence in anything. Rather, if one concludes that logic is trustworthy, then one must conclude that God does exist, and would in turn further deduce that it is possible that a god did not need to create a universe depending on the General Theory of Evolution, as society sees it today.

Definitions and Understandings

Mutations- A change in or the process of changing, e.g. nature, form or quality. (2)

Natural Selection- A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations. (3)

There are those who do not adhere to the General Theory of Evolution (Both theists and agnostics have been known to doubt Evolutionary theory). With this body of Evolution doubters, we do not say that mutations and natural selection does not happen. We know that new species can be created.

For example, we see many types of dogs, and over time speciation occurs. With dog breeding, we can use natural selection to keep the traits that are desired, and produce the traits that are unfavorable. However, natural selection only selecs information that is already there. It does not account for a mechanism that can produce a new kind of animal.

Mutations can alter the genetic code, mostly in harful ways, but there are some instances where it may produce a new function. But this new function is only relatable to the organism. That is to say, imagine a mouse gaining a function to help it battle off a certain diseaes. This new function relies on the system of the organism, but if the mouse were to receive mutations that altered the genetic code to account for, let's say wings, this would be of no use for the organism, as it's system is not built for that type of function. And this is where my party and Evolutionists disagree. They say that with enough time and new functions, a new kind of animal will be created, but my party would say that mutations have a limit to how much they can change an organism, and no matter how much time, we would never see one kind of animal change into another.

Evolutionary Misunderstandings


The basic conception that the general public holds of evolution is that the fossil record proves evolution and that all organisms were created by mutations and natural selection. However, this layman conception is entirely false (I am not using the fallacy of authority, rather, I am presenting testimonies of scientists in their field who have actually studied this information. I hold these testimonies as trustworthy):

"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." (Evolutionary Paleontologist David Raup) (4)


"A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species,. That's a common idea people have, that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is <not> the cause of evolutionary change." -Gould, evolutionary biologist (5)


Another issue with The Theory Evolution is the common belief that there are many transitionary fossils. Evolution relies on transitionary fossils, and without it, the theory would crumble. The uneducated public assumes that scientists have found many tranistionary fossils, as can be seen on wikipedia (6)

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record. Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks." (Gould) (7)

Now, Gould said this in 1980, so evolutionists since then have tried very hard to make it seem as though there are transitionary fossils. The problem with this is, there is no transitionary fossil that isn't disputed among scientists. Also, most of the claimed transitionary fossils are really no more than some pieces of skeletons that are claimed to be part of a whole transitional creature. Each claim for each single transitionary fossil can be disrpoven. Now, evolutionists won't appreciate this skepticism. Fine, even if we allowed for a hundred or so tranistional fossils, it wouldn't matter. The Theory of Evolution demands millions of them. This is not the case. This is why Gould was more convinced of puncuated equilibria than Darwin's gradualism. (Not that I am arguing for puncuated equilibria, this theory itself has it's own issues, but I am not currently debating this topic, so I will leave it at that).

Time is Not the Hero of the Plot

Some Evolution doubters are Theists who uphold a view that there was a worldwide flood around the time of Noah, some 4300 years ago. This would account for many of the geological layers forming rapidly, not over millions of years. Here are some examples of different dating methods and evidences of this:

When a balloon is filled up with helium, over time the helium escapes the balloon and it eventually fails to continue floating. The same is true with zircon crystals. They contain helium molecules, and by measuring the amount of time it takes for the helium to escape, we can estimate how old the zirocn crystals are. The issue is, these crystals are in rocks that were dated as 1.5 billions years ago by evolutionists. However, the helium dating showed that the rocks could from 4 to 8 thousand yearls old (8)

Today’s measured half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. This means that we should not find any trace of Carbon 14 in anything over one million years old. However, many evolutionists find Carbon 14 in many things, and immediately claim it was contaminated, not wanting to admit that their standard dating methods are not reliable or accurate. (9)


Evolution's Biggest Problem

Evolution requires abiogenesis, that is, life arriving from non-living materials. There was an experiment by Miller-Urey (10), but this experiment did not meet the requirements of the atmosphere of ancient earth. Scientists are now realizing that abiogenesis on earth was impossible, and are now looking at optioins such as panspermia and life from Mars (11).

We know that life cannot arise from non-life. We have no evidence for life coming from anywhere else. Without a starting point, evolution cannot happen. Since abiogensis is impossible, we can easily conclude that the General Theory of Evolution is impossible.

Conclusion

Evolution is irrational, it gives us no reason to trust logic, and the theory only survives on wishful thinking.



(1) http://www.goodreads.com...
(2) http://www.biology-online.org...
(3) http://www.biology-online.org...
(4) Science July 17 1981 p.289, David Raup
(5) MUTATIONS ARE NON-PRODUCTIVE , STEPHEN J. GOULD, HarvardLecture, Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(7) Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
(8) http://www.icr.org...
(9) http://www.icr.org...
(10) http://people.chem.duke.edu...
(11) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro


Rebuttals…


It appears that Con Is Perhaps under a very grave misapprehension of what we are discussing here.


Evolution is a sound scientific concept?

We are debating if Evolution is a logical scientific concept that is supported by evidence and observation as I earlier stated in round one.


Now take note I will not be debating if Evolution is true, simply if Evolution is a sound scientific concept.”


The implications of this are rather simple I must present a case for evolution that is


a. Based on valid reasoning: a sound observation. b. Free from logical flaws: sound reasoning.



(Sound) .


An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs or a logical, mathematical statement describing the consistency that applies to the phenomenon.


(Scientific Concept) .


Con has yet to provide a case against why and evolution should NOT be considered a


Sound scientific concept.



Now unto Cons absurd “Standards of Logic”.


My esteemed opponent proposes the fallacious argument… Transcendental argument for the existence of God” Voter’s keep in mind we are NOT debating the existence of god(s) at all that is irrelevant to if evolution is a sound scientific concept.

While I have qualms with Cons argument I need not address them since they are irrelevant neither if Con prefers to take a solipsistic view of reality that too im afraid is again irrelevant.



However I will demonstrate why Cons argument fails.


If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.


Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God . Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.


However keep in mind the existence of god(s) or imaginary beings is irrelevant to this debate.


This debate is about science.


Very Basic Terms of Logic

Logic might be minimally defined as:


The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
http://dictionary.reference.com...\



Example of logic as it indeed seems needed.


1. All As are Bs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore, all As are Cs


2. Principle of Non-Contradiction

The law/principle of Non-Contradiction suggests that contradictions do not occur; that two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be true. It was famously stated by Aristotle: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." That is, it states "not-both":

~(p & ~p)

An example:
It cannot be the case that I am a human and that I am not a human.


Voters surely that will suffice as examples of logic.



Unto con’s “Definitions and Understandings


“With this body of Evolution doubters, we do not say that mutations and natural selection does not happen. We know that new species can be created.

For example, we see many types of dogs, and over time speciation occurs. With dog breeding, we can use natural selection to keep the traits that are desired, and produce the traits that are unfavorable. However, natural selection only selecs information that is already there. It does not account for a mechanism that can produce a new kind of animal.


Con has all but Conceded at this point.


This is equivalent to saying I believe in inches but not feet.
Keep in mind our first rule.


This is a Non sequitur.
Also keep in mind as I stated in round one.
I will be attempting to show that Evolution is a sound scientific concept we are not debatingabiogenesis.

Unto Con’s “Evolutionary Misunderstandings


These are all not only arguments from authority but false claims as well.


As theta_pinch pointed out and myself also researched thoroughly Cons quotes are only found on biased sites that advocate creationism.Keep in mind creationism is again irrelevant to this debate .


So I looked up that Stephen J. Gould quote Lupricona gave and could only find it on sites that advocate creationism.


We can simply dismiss all of Cons quotes as they are not only arguments from authority but are also fabrications.


On David Raup's quote alone which presented by Con.



Nearly all those quoted were taken either out of context or misinterpreted by Creationists.

http://www.zootorah.com...

Here is the Rational Wiki page on David Raup, it mentions Creationist Quote Mining.
http://rationalwiki.org...

What the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) merely does is quote mine past and existing Scientists to find paragraphs and phrases to take out of context.

This is the only real research the ICR has ever undertaken.
Funny name for a supposed Research center that does absolutely no real scientific research.


Unto con’s “Time is Not the Hero of the Plot


Con” Some Evolution doubters are Theists who uphold a view that there was a worldwide flood around the time of Noah, some 4300 years ago.


“standard dating methods are not reliable or accurate. (9)


Not only is this incredibly absurd but again this is irrelevant to evolution however I will address it.


Evidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.


P2. The reliability of radiometric dating


The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by discharging particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,
(the hardest substance known to mankind)

Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.
The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.

With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth.


Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dating by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay.


However voters keep in mind this is irrelevant to the case at hand.










Con’s “Evolution's Biggest Problem


“Evolution requires abiogenesis


Absolutely a false claim as I stated in round one.


Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory this has no impact on evolution.


Con has yet to make a logical scientific case against why


Evolution is NOT sound scientific concept


Which is what con must do in this debate.



Conclusion.


Evolution is a rational logical and sound scientific concept backed by evidence and observations any oppositions of it merely survive on wishful thinking.


Vote Pro.



SOURCES.


[1], The Futility of Non-Christian Thought, Antithesis, Vol II, July/August, 1991, pp 40-42, Keith Parsons, Is Non-Christian Thought Futile? Antithesis, Vol II July/August, 1991, pp 42-44,



[2]Con’s fallacious arguments.


[3]Logic.


[4]http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...


[5]http://www.talkorigins.org...


[6]http://tinyurl.com......


[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...;

http://infidels.org...
http://www.pbs.org...
http://atheism.about.com...
Lupricona

Con

Intro

My opponent seems not to understand what "sound" means when dealing with logic.


I only have to show one error in the Theory of Evolution to win this debate. I have provided many. I will continue to argue that Evolution is false on many accounts, because I only need one argument to go without refutation.


Rebuttals

Trancendental Argument

My opponent seems not to understand Evolution. Evolution presupposes that God does not exist. It is a natural explanation for how we came to be. If I can prove God exists, that dismanltes one of the premises for Evolution.

My opponent then referenced some of the basic laws of logic. Umm...okay? He completely ignored my argument.

As for this point, my Trancendental argument remains unrefuted. This alone refutes Evolution.




Mutations and Natural Selection

Pro says: "This is equivalent to saying I believe in inches but not feet. This is a non-sequitur."

Sigh. You have entirely inored my argument again and have misunderstood what a non-sequitur is.

Non-Sequitur: a statement that does not follow from the premises.

When my opponent argues that because we see mutations and natural selection, that means Darwinian Evolution is true. This is an example of a non-sequitor.

I have already provided the argument that mutations and natural selection does not account for Evolution.

Pro argued that my Gould quote was only found on biased sites. This is an argument from ignorance. Since my opponent's source has found this quote on Creation web sites, and he didn't see one on Evolution sites, then it must be false. I ask the viewers to notice that when I referenced my quote, I did not use a Creation Web site. I cited it's source- whoever else uses this quote is irrelevant.

Pro also argued that my David Raup quotes were taken out of context. No, I quoted all of the relevant information and sourced it accurately.


Here is the issue: There are some scientific Evolutionists that make honest statements about how weak the theory of Evolution is. Creationists use this because it is helpful for their arguments. When Creationists use them, they are constantly accused of out of context quotes, etc. because Evolutionists do not like their theory being dismantled. However, ad hominem acctacks are not appreciated here.


My argument for lack of proof for Evolution besides the mutations non-sequitur still remains unrefuted.

Time is Not the Hero of the Plot

My opponent completely ignored my arguments, saying that this is irrelevant.

No, I have to disprove Evolution. If I can show that the earth is not billions of years old, then yes, Evolution would be proven false.

My arguments remains unrefuted, so again, I have proved Evolution as a false theory.

Abiogenesis

My opponent again ignores my argument.

If abiogensis did not happen, then evolution could not have happened. There is no way around this. My opponent understands this, which is why he does not like this argument, because he cannot refute it.

Abiogenesis is the premise for Evolution. Sound logic requires a true premise. If Abiogenesis is not true, then I have proved that Evolution is not a sound scientific concept.

Conduct

My opponent said "We can dismiss all of Cons quotes as they are not only arguments from authority but are also fabrications." First off, this is not argument from authority, this is testimony from scientists who have observed the evidence. Secondly, my opponent has accused me of fabrication. This is an insult, and requires the loss of his conduct point.

Conclusion

My opponent asked that we use logic in this debate, but has consistenly used logical fallacies, ad hominems, ignored basically all of my arguments, and then falsely accused me of logical fallacies.

I don't think my opponent is taking this debate seriously. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro


Crystallization of my arguments.



We must first notice how CON consistently used logical fallacies, ad hominems, ignored basically all of my arguments, and Has yet to make ANY rational logical arguments backed by sound eveidence to support his position.


Keep in mind the topic.


“Evolution is a sound scientific concept”


Let’s review my contentions.


· I’ve provided LOGICALLY SOUND evidence to support my position that evolution is a sound scientific concept.


· Observed instances of Evolution.-Argument stands.


· Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.-Argument stands


· the fossil record.-Argument stands.


· Prediction Genetic change._Argument stands.


These arguments stand unchallenged.


Let’s review con’s “contentions”.


· “Standards of Logic”-Destroyed.


·


· Cons fabricated quote mines~shattered


·


· “Time is Not the Hero of the Plot”~irrational, preposterous,fallacious,illogical and .Refuted.


·


· Evolution requires abiogenesis”-A good indication that Con doesn't understand evolution for it has nothing to do with evolution


·


· Trancendental Argument ”~Not only refuted but evolution has no qualms with Cons imaginary friends.








Conduct.


Con several times broke our Logic rule this warrants a conduct deduction if not a full 7 points in my favor and falsely accused me of logical fallacies.


This is an insult, and requires the loss of Cons conduct point !


Con has yet to support his position.



CONCLUSION


I’ve made a logical case for why evolution is a sound scientific concept backed by evidence and arguments that have gone unrefuted.


I have successfully dismantled Con’s fallacious arguments.


We can conclude that evolution is a sound scientific concept that is backed by evidence ,logic and observation.


Anyone who denies it Is failing to reason honestly and does not value evidence and logic.


Unfortunately it seems that con will not change his beliefs to conform to reality and evidence.


I will end with


You should never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes time and annoys the pig.


my opponent is NOT taking reality for what it is.



Vote pro if you value evidence and logic.


Lupricona

Con

Pro literally just took everything that I said in round 3, and then switched them around for his position. He added no rebuttals to my arguments- he just asserted that they were refuted.

My opponnent literally added nothing for me to rebut in his final round. All of my arguments are still extended.

I stated this last round- Pro did not take this debate seriously.

I'm sorry you had to read over this crazy font jungle to sort through wild assertions made by Pro.

Vote for Con to show that this website does contain well meaning and intelligent individuals.
Debate Round No. 4
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
I realized in my reason for vote. I had said con but meant pro at the end!. just clearing that up!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Will do. Although I will say that out of the 4 horsemen Krauss is the most intimidating because he is wayy to freaking smart. Holy crap! That guy gives new meaning to genius!
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Krauss is a great author you should read his universe from nothing.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Sam and Krauss have there strength's as well. I'm always wanting to see more from Maher as well! Religulous was a great film!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
For sure! Dawkins is all about educating where Christopher is the Michael Jordan of debate!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
I saw Sam Harris talk about people believing that Elvis is still Alive. Some of the people who truly believed this would use the same arguments that anyone uses when describing their belief. Either way when they bring it up on a first date or a job interview.. right away they loose credit! Very funny!
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
For me i think Christopher Hitchens was the absolute best of debaters far better than Dawkins or Harris.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Cool! Did not know it would show up!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
See if this gets you to the video!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Everyone who follows Ray Comfort: He is a good person i'm sure.. however he is a threat to knowledge (read Farenheit 451) You have the RIGHT to knowledge. Very important to understand that it is not about compromising here. Let the facts be known. If you have faith thats great. But is should not conflict with your freedom to learn the truth. (Richard Dawkins is a very passionate teacher. I have learned more from hime than any teacher I ever had) P.S. Watch King Crocoduck vs. Ray Comfort.. you will see there is no debate here!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Arosi2123 3 years ago
Arosi2123
imsmarterthanyou98LupriconaTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: i believe in the theories
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
imsmarterthanyou98LupriconaTied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately for Con there really is no one alive today that can debunk evolution. (it would be very easy)Not saying that what we think evolution is today could not evolve itself but the frame work will always be the same. Any way you look at it we are designed by natural selection. Even if their was a being who could create life through intelligent design . It would still have evolved from the same process. Not saying pro has the understanding that someone like Richard Dawkins would have but still in order to actually call evolution a fallacy would take a reputable scientist. Not just someone who will reject anything if it contradicts their beliefs! Ther is a lot of information on the subject and con had barely scratched the surface (I don't blame con because I too am still learning)
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98LupriconaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made very grand, unsupported Assumptions which and Appeal To False Authority Fallacy, which lost conduct point. Assumptions: "Evolution presupposes that God does not exist", Wrong, Most Evolutionists are Christians, who don't consider it as being such, "We know that life cannot arise from non-life", bland, unsupported Assumption, none of the evidence presented by Con can support such and assumption. Pro lost conduct on Formatting, the Fonts were an Assault on the Eyes, very hard to read. I'm not convinced by obvious, mostly out-of-date Quote mining, e.g. Gould who died quite a while ago, I have many of his books and he was an ardent Evolutionist, the quote supplied does not depict Gould's actual view of evolution, quote mining very rarely bears any Truthfulness.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
imsmarterthanyou98LupriconaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used several red herring arguments and a strawman. Pro had arguments based on empirical evidence so arguments g to pro. Most of con's resources are heavily biased creationist sites which aren't reliable so sources go to pro.