Evolution is a strongly supported fact of science.
Debate Rounds (3)
1: Keep this debate religion free. Although science and religion have traditionally been at conflict, the question of whether biological entities evolve is purely an empirical matter, while the god concept remains beyond physical reality. My opponent is free to continue believing in a god whether he accepts Evolution or not. This debate simply investigates the empirical evidence for and/or against it.
2. Use proper definitions. Rhetoric and poorly defined semantic footwork are too common in debates. This is a scientific issue, and we are here to address the evidence, whether poor or strong, and apply reasoning to that evidence. Likewise, statements such as: "Evolution cannot explain __________" will not be granted merit if it is not followed by any kind of acceptable empirical data or reasoning.
3. Establish that Evolutionary Theory, whether a product of nature or by the will of a creator, is an established fact of science, and all objections to it fall short of either rigorous peer review or simply getting the evidence straight. These are simple and necessary requirements for the scientific method.
4. Remember that Evolutionary Theory does not apply the Big Bang cosmology, Planetary formation, or Abiogenesis. These may be intimately connected causally and physically, but the Evolution of organisms on this planet is a specific process that needs independent investigation.
5. Leave emotions at the door. Simple.
Thank you, and best of luck.
Evolution is THEORY and should be treated as such because of the many flaws in the theory that I will be pointing out.
Evolution is not strongly supported, as fossil evidence cannot back it up, and other reasons.
Good luck to you, and I hope to have a good, well constructed debate.
This round will include rebutting popular misconceptions. Round three for rebutting my opponents specific claims.
"Evolution is only a theory"
The word Theory in a scientific sense refers to an explanatory model that accounts for facts, laws, and observations. It is not a conjecture, as we commonly know the term. Laws never become Theories, and Theories never become Laws. Theories explain Laws. A Theory is the highest standard possible in science, transcending mere hypothesis.  The criticism that Evolution is "only a theory" remains a common misunderstood and axiomatically wrong criticism when the correct definition of the term is accounted for.
This semantic confusion is initially understandable. However, It becomes an issue when the public uses demonstrably wrong and misguided terminology in a democracy where polictians, as representatives of the people and not neccessarily scientifically literate, have the power to cut funding for crucial scientific research.
Read: Chapter one (Only a Theory?) from The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins
"There are no transitional fossils"
The fossil record is necessarily incomplete. By geological standards, one could not expect every single transitional organism being perfectly fossilized. All one has to do is read up on the literature concerning the process bones have to go through in order to fossilize. The gaps of millions of years between each finding is entirely reasonable. It is still a testament that Darwin was even able to figure out that organisms share a common ancestor without the modern findings of palaeontology.  However, he predicted we should find transitional forms, and we indeed did.  If Evolution were false, we should expect a random sequence. There is a reason we find certain forms in certain stages of the Earth's layers, and it's predicted by Evolutionary Theory.
It's also important to remember that filling a gap represents progress in our understanding; it does not represent going from one gap in the fossil record to two gaps, and it's relatively specious for one to claim so if they wouldn't apply the same reasoning in other areas of their life.
Read: Chapter six (Missing Link? What do you mean, "Missing?") from The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins;
Chapter two (Written in the Rocks) from Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne.
"_______________ is too complicated to have evolved"
This is a common argument from ignorance. Merely dicatating that something is complex, and loathing ones inability to account for it does not represent rigorous reasoning. The complexities of Evolution are genuine puzzles that need solving with years of data collection refinement. It strains ones credulity less to suggest that, for example, the eye evolved over many successive generations than it is to suggest anything unscientific as an alternative.  There is an abundance of peer reviewed research documenting Evolutionary pathways to seemingly irreducibly complex structures. I recommend reading up on the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, and the specific examples that were addressed regarding the validity of Darwinian mechanisms accounting for the complexities of various biological structures, such as the modern immune system of vertebrates. 
There are numerous scientific laws and advancements to our understanding that are counter intuitive (Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Computer Science) that no one is ever inclined to question because it does not tie in to our emotions as human beings. Evolution is controversial not because scientists disagree on how the complexity of life came about, but rather because of the publics' refusal to accept something profound enough to suggest our very origins without even understanding its basic principles. Skepticism is a virtue in science, and ignorance is what drives our need to understand. However, when ignorance is used as an excuse to favor emotionally satisfying yet illogical answers without providing hard evidence, we are a long way from justifying pointing our finger at hard working scientists who are providing the evidence.
Chapter 9 (Evolution Redux), Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne
"Evolution is athesitic "
This is a common and demonstrably false assumption. An easy way to discredit this is to point to the Catholic Church, having been initially resistant, finally conceding to the evidence compiled for Evolution and officially declaring it to be a valid method on which god worked his creative power. I am simply addressing the fact that many theologians rightly accept the scientific evidence for Evolution, and thus, this does not automatically lead people to atheism.    How people draw their Philosophical and/or religious conclusions after examining Evolutionary is a personal, not empirical, endevour. Arguments have been made and lines of reasoning have been argued for the notion that Evolution discredits the concept of a creator god or god(s), but this debate will not address these.
Non-Sequitur (logic), Wikipedia
"Evolution is irrational and/or not scientific"
This claim against Evolution could easily be dealt with using a few simple defintions. However, as I prefer using my own words, I will not do this.
Science must be falsifiable. This means that any proposition must be, at least in theory, able to be proven false. If not, it is entirely shielded from open inquiry and peer review. Without this, it would be hard to distinguish which ideas are more credible than others. Evolutionary Theory has a plethera of relevant scientific disciplines that could discredit the idea that all orgaisms share a common ancestor.
First, Paleontology. Finding an aquatic mammal in the Pre-cambrian layer of geological strata would certainly do the trick. Evolution predicts that simple forms would eventually split off and evolve into larger and more complex organisms, with the simple and justified assumption that they unconsciously had to in order to survive. This is exactly what we find. A common objection is that whenever paleontologists find something "out of place" they simply change the order of things and thus "change their minds" and update their model. This is a semantic trick. Scientists have indeed updated their understaning of the fossil record, based entirely on the evidence, which is exactly the oppossite of irrational behavior and simply "changing ones mind." 
Second, Evolution needs time, and Geologists, Physisists, Cosmologists, Dendrochronologists et al. have indeed spoken on how old the Earth is, and sure enough there is no reason to believe 4 billion years is not long enough for lifeforms to evolve. If my opponent does not accept this age, he is not challenging Evolution: he is challenging one of the most widely accepted empirical facts about our Earth and Universe.
For Evolution to be scientific, we must also look at at whether or not we can test and observe it's predictions. Evolutionary biologists predicted that the genetic code would overlap perfectly with biological ancestry as shown by tradtional phylogeny. If Evolution were not true, we should expect each species to show no evidence of common ancestry in their genetic makeup. Alas, we indeed do find it. 
"Mutations are only harmful, organisms must have been designed"
That mutations are only harmful is a common myth. Most of them are neutral and have little to no effect on an organisms survival. The harmful mutations are usually weeded out by natural selection, and vice versa, the beneficial ones are selected for, eventually leading to very intricate and complex survival machines. Cumulative Natural Selection 101.
More potent, I personally believe, is the vestigial remnants of Evolution, as they spell out the flaws of traditional intelligent design reasoning. If descent with modification were true, we should expect to find numerous illuminating examples of redundant structures and biological systems, as Natural selection can only mold what is already there to begin with. No surprise here, we find many of them. Whales with limp legs and useless pelvic bones, giraffes with 16 foot laringial nerves (when a few inches is preferrable), blind spots in mammalian vision due to the placement of the optic nerve, and useless wings in flightless birds are a few examples off the top of my head. Nature does not start from scratch, and it shows: on the phenotype level down to the very genetic code of organisms. There is a reason humans have redundant DNA used for making tails, and it is predicted by Evolution.   
Chapter 3 (Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos and Bad Design), Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne.
I simply cannot address all of the miguided claims against Evolution. I believe addressing and clearing up these few objections provides a solid beginning for what I hope to be a pleasurable debate, and I must save a little stamina for specific rebuttals in round three.
Thank you for reading.
4. Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins, R. Chapter 5.
1. How was the first cell created?
Many evolutionists may try to argue that chemicals came together to make the first cell, but this is completely false. For the right chemicals, at the right time, to be somehow drawn to each other, and come together to create the first cell, is highly improbable. To quote Edwin Conklin, a biologist, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." The belief that life created itself is not only ridiculous, but a contradiction, as many biologists will tell you that cells can only come from other cells. Also the chances for this cell that has just been exposed to a foreign environment to survive, are once again, slim.
http://deeptruths.com... ___ See life from non-life
2. How can evolutionists explain the complexity of the genetic code?
To quote my source, "As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected"an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information"the detailed instructions for assembling proteins"in the form of a four-character digital code" If evolution were a "Fact Of Science", then how would you explain the complexity of the genetic code? It is truly fascinating, and many evolutionists will also tell you that the complexity of this code is obviously too great to have started out at nothing, and randomly mutate into the complex perfection that it is now.
3. How did different sexes originate?
If evolution is true, then why do we have two sexes? This is one of the hardest questions for evolutionists to answer, since it is obvious that asexual reproduction is much faster then sexual reproduction, what is the advantage to sexual reproduction? Also, if we were all to start of from asexual cells, then HOW did both genders end up so similar? This puts a huge flaw in the theory, and I would like to hear my opponents thoughts on this.
4. Where is the evolutionary tree for insects?
There is a huge gap in the evolutionary tree for insects, as you probably know. So, why have we not found the missing links between non winged insects and winged insects? It pokes a huge hole in evolution, since the evolutionary tree forgets about insects almost altogether, so, where did insects come from?
5. What did humans get first, the heart, the blood vessels or the blood?
Though I have no source for this, it is still a question that should make you think: If evolution is true, then how could transitional creatures survive? We all know that humans have organs and systems that are completely necessary for our survival, and each organ and system relies on one another. So, what did we gain first, the heart, blood vessels or the blood? Without just one, the creature would die, and the mathematical chances of all of these traits being adapted at the same time is once more, slim. The same could be asked about many systems in our body such as what came first, the ability to use oxygen, our lungs, or the ability to pull oxygen into our lungs?
6. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?
This question may be answered by saying that RNA replicated DNA which in turn made proteins. If that is true, then how did RNA come to be? If you say that it is made up of nucleotide, then what formed that?
7. Can evolution explain the complexity of the giraffe?
There are many creatures that, "Defy Evolution", one being the giraffe. To quote my source, "Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.
However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.
However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally. Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe. These systems could never have evolved, since not only are they complex, but not all three systems could have possibly been acquired at the same time.
8. Why can we find DNA on fossils that are supposedly billions of years old?
Proving the Earth is young would disprove the theory all together, and one huge piece of evidence that proves a young Earth is DNA on fossils. We know that DNA can only survive for 10,000 years or less, so why can we find DNA on fossils?
9. If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards?
If our solar system evolved from the same material, then they should have many similarities. That being said, why does Pluto, Venus, Uranus and over 30 moons spin backwards?
10. Why does Second Law of Thermodynamics say that things become less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state over time?
According to this law, things will basically become less ordered and eventually reach a steady state such as a glass of hot water reaching room temp, a sun exploding over time, and buildings decaying. But, the theory of evolution proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Some primary examples are the genetic code and the formation of the stars.
Next, I will be going over the lack of evidence supporting evolution. I have a limited amount of words, so I cannot ramble on about it, but i will provide as much information as possible before I run out of characters.
I would like to start out with the flaws in the evolutionary tree. I have already pointed out that there is a lack of a tree for insects, but not yet animals. Way back in the evolutionary tree, there is something called the Cambrian Explosion. In this time, there was rapid diversification, wand it was a relatively short period. Before this period, there was organisms with small amounts of cells, or fairly simple organisms altogether. All of the sudden, organisms like trilobites came about, which contained hundreds of THOUSANDS of cells! This is a huge gap in the evolutionary tree, and it happens throughout it, though not as drastically as in the Cambrian Explosion.
Next, I would like to go over vestigial organs and how this does not prove evolution. I would like to start out by saying that just because we do not know the meaning of an organ, does not mean it is vestigial. If you were to take that organ out, and not die, that also does not mean that it is vestigial, as you can take kidney's out of our body without dying, and we know that kidneys are not useless.
Both of these are commonly referred to evidences as proof that evolution happened, but as you can see, they are flawed evidences. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal to all of this information, and wish him the best of luck for the rest of the debate.
Most of my opponents sources are from religious websites. I have a good reason to believe that he did not thoroughly check my mine and gain a better understanding of Evolution or he would not have made these claims I am about to refute. This time I will make it very easy for him to do so by mostly quoting Talkorigins.org, which in turn only cites peer reviewed science, contained in a single website.
"At the core of evolutionary theory is the big assumption that life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process -- POOF -- life created itself! This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity.”
Chance is a small part of how life arose, and it did not entail a “mysterious, unknown electrochemical process.” It involved physics and chemistry. Abiogenisis does not break the second Law of Thermodynamics. Our universe may be a closed system, but our planet is not. It receives energy from the sun. I would recommend providing better sources, and gaining a better understanding of scientific terminology, if you plan on discrediting one of the foundational concepts of biology. 
How was the first cell created?
The first cell (arbitrarily defined) would have resulted from self-replicating molecules eventually evolving a shielding lipid membrane, and certainly would not have appeared as complex as modern cells do.  Most scientists accept the RNA world theory, as RNA acts as a crude self replicator and crude enzyme, sufficient enough for natural selection to work upon.  It is a straw man fallacy, and bad science, to point to the complexity of modern cells and assert that they must have been the first life forms. Your question is more indicting of how you do not understand what Abiogenesis would predict according to the laws of Chemistry and Physics.  For a light-hearted introduction, I recommend watching this Youtube Video:
Abiogenesis was not to be discussed; it is an entirely different process than Biological Evolution, and the transition between Abiogenesis and Natural Selection is arbitrary. Let us assume your claim to be true: that a complex, modern cell MUST have somehow popped into existence by the works of an invisible and unspecific intelligent force. This still does not discredit Evolution. 
How can evolutionists explain the complexity of the genetic code?
You are correct. Evolutionists will tell us that the complexity of the genetic code is too great to have come out of nothing, as you say. It came out of slow and cumulative copying, rearranging and selection for over 4 billion years. I provided quality sources for this in my previous post. If you have a better alternative, you are free to present your evidence using credible sources.
How did different sexes originate?
The Evolution of sex is likely very primordial, originating perhaps 1.2 bya.  Natural Selection would have favored it by repairing DNA  and inhibiting excess variation.  It is not irreducibly complex. 
Where is the evolutionary tree for insects?
Though I doubt the credibility of your source, lets assume there are no transitional fossils for insects. Is it logical to infer that this pokes a “huge hole” in Evolution, rather than assuming we just haven’t found the transitions yet? Likewise, even if a transition WAS found, a creationist could easily claim otherwise by simply saying it was perfectly suited for its way of life using smaller proto-wings and had no relation the ancestors/descendants it was compared to. This is a god of the gaps argument. If you are interested in learning how wings evolve, check my source. 
What did humans get first, the heart, the blood vessels or the blood?
The heart organ, blood vessels and blood all evolved long before humans were ever around, as Evolutionary Theory predicts. If you are interested in how the heart organ and vessels  evolved, I would suggest reading scientific literature on it. Merely asking a hard question and not getting a response does not mean that any suppositions you might have in it’s place are automatically valid. A good start would be examining any “lesser" structures that we currently observe today and see if we can infer any similarities between it and what could have been ancestral. 
Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?
RNA is made up of nucleotide bases, which could have evolved into DNA.  If you watched the Youtube Video, it is easy to see how strands of nucleotides could eventually give rise to RNA, a more efficient copier. Nucleotides, as the building blocks of DNA, spontaneously assemble from organic molecules spread throughout the cosmos by exploding stars.   I would read Carl Sagan’s The Varieties of Scientific Experience for an enlightening treatise on this fact.
Can evolution explain the complexity of the giraffe?
The source you provided is written by a dentist and a theologian. I used to read his books. The length of Giraffe necks does not disprove Evolution,  and it looks as though you are not addressing my previous example as to why an intelligent force would create an unnecessarily long 17 foot laryngeal nerve that is susceptible to damage?
Why can we find DNA on fossils that are supposedly billions of years old?
We do not find DNA on fossils that are billions of years old. According to recent news, the oldest DNA ever recovered is Mitochondrial DNA, dated at 400,000 years old.  I am well aware of Creation.com, I used to read their propaganda. They are well known to distort things.
If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards?
This has nothing to do with biological Evolution. If you are interested in why planets spin in different directions (They do not spin “backwards”), I would recommend taking a course in astrophysics.
Why does Second Law of Thermodynamics say that things become less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state over time?
I have already dealt with this claim. Refer to my source above.
Next, I will be going over the lack of evidence supporting evolution… Way back in the evolutionary tree, there is something called the Cambrian Explosion. In this time, there was rapid diversification, wand it was a relatively short period. Before this period, there was organisms with small amounts of cells, or fairly simple organisms altogether. All of the sudden, organisms like trilobites came about, which contained hundreds of THOUSANDS of cells! This is a huge gap in the evolutionary tree…
If you forgot to post some of your evidence discrediting evolution, perhaps add it in the next round. See sources regarding the Cambrian explosion. It is a myth that the Cambrian explosion contradicts the tree of life  , and it’s a myth that trilobites   and other forms  mysteriously pop into existence. Again, this is a god of the gaps argument.
Regarding vestigials, I’m assuming you did not check my sources. Just because they might serve a function, does not mean it is optimal.  Keep in mind, your claim contradicts another creationist claim: That they are decayed remnants (from the fall?) and not examples of evolution. 
...not only is evolution not well supported, but is a JOKE
If Evolution is a joke, then creationism is surely the punch line.
As this is my final round, I would like observers to check my sources and think deeply about how well I have defended some of the foundations of Evolutionary Theory, cleared up misunderstandings, and responded to misplaced criticism. I would like to point out that my opponent introduced irrelevant topics to our debate on Biological Evolution (Abiogenisis, Planetary Evolution, God), cited religious sources in a scientific debate, and has demonstrated too much scientific naiveté to be considered credible in criticizing one of the most widely accepted scientific models in history. I do appreciate his sincerity, but this is too often clouded by an inability to genuinely seek empirical answers to empirical questions. By appealing to creationist propaganda, he seems not only unable to discredit Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, but unable to demonstrate a viable alternative. I wish him the best of luck for his final round.
In the 2nd round my opponent talked mostly about misconseptions about evolution, and not evidence supporting it, wchich was what his 2nd round should have been about. The resolve is that evolution is a well supported fact of science, not that it has many misconceptions.
He started off by agreeing that the fossil record is incomplete, and then went into how some creatures' complexity does not disprove evolution. As I said in my 2nd round speech, creatures like the giraffe are too complex to have evolved, and many evolutionists would agree. He then goes on to say that there is much evidence to prove evolution, though he has not provided any, and used the "Public's Ignorance" To give an explantion to why people see holes in evolution.
Next, my opponent brings up that you can believe in both evolution and God, though this is completely off track of the resolve. In the following paragraph, he gives in that evolution is a flawed 'Theory', and many scientific facts can be used to disprove it, which I COMPLETELY agree with. In the next paragraph, he explains how evolution needs time, though hunderds of facts and dating methods would say otherwise. Lastly, he brings up vestigial organs, and if you read my speech in the 2nd round, I will explain to you how vestigal organs does not prove evolution.
Now I will be talking about the many flaws in my opponents rebuttal to my 2nd round speech. My opponent starts off by trying to explain that I do not know enough about evolution, though this is not true. In fact, if my opponent knew much about evolution himself, he could have answered my questions. Instead, he either "Danced" around them, or said, "Look at my source." This is not a valid answer to my questions, and further shows that my opponent does not know enough about evolution to even answer questions about. Also, though he says that talk origons is "Peer reviewed science", he does not KNOW this as a fact, and therefore, he must ASSUME that what talk origins says is true, which explains to me his lack of true information.
To start off, my opponent talks about how chance is a small part of evolution. This is simply ridiculous, and he only says this because he himself knows that the chances of evolution happening are extremely slim.
My opponent starts his first paragraph about the first cell by saying that RNA COULD act as a simple replicator. Though, for RNA to have come to be, there must have been nucleotides, but the question still remains, where did the nucleotides come from? In his following paragraph, he says that the first cell is a different topic than evolution, which does not make much sense, since there must have been a first cell for the evolutionary process to begin.
Next, he attempts to explain the compexity of the genetic code, but admits that, "The complexity of the genetic code is too gerat to have come out of nothing." This is true, and is a major flaw in the theory of evolution.
My opponent then rushes to explain how different sexes originated, and fails by just saying that it was not complex. We KNOW that for two genders to have come to be, there must have been many reasons why sexual reproduction is the better trait, and like I said in the 2nd round, the chances of two genders branching off from an asexual organism and ending up so similar, is slim.
He then tries to answer my question about the missing evolutionary tree for insects, by saying that my source was not reliable, though it is a SCIENCE website, and is surely more reliable that talk origins. He then asks an opinionated question, that I will answer to- Yes. The lack of an evolutionary tree for insects shows me that evolution can not show an origin for insects, and therefore does not prove how ALL life came to be. Then, he refered to his source instead of actually explaining to me how insects got their wings.
In his next paragraph explaining the origins of the hear, blood vessels, and the blood, he merely refers to his source again, proving to me once more that he does not know much about evolution.
Next, he explains how DNA came to be, and very poorly, in my opinion. This is because he tries to explain the origin of nucleotides by saying that, "Nucleotides, as the building blocks of DNA, spontaneously assemble from organic molecules spread throughout the cosmos by exploding stars.". I'm not sure what every one else thinks of this ridiculous hypothesis of how nucleotides COULD have originated, but he has described no evidence that this happened.
He starts of his next paragraph by saying that my source was written by someone he knew, and therefore is not reliable (Strange). Then, instead of telling me how the giraffe does not disprove evolution, he simply says that it does not. He then tries to bring up an inteligent force, which is not relevant to the debate.
My opponent then tries to explain DNA being on fossils that are supposedly billions of years old by saying that my source was bad, and that we have only seen one fossil with DNA older than 10,000 years on it. But, this is not true, we have hundereds of these, and I welcome viewers to research this. But, I understand my opponents confusion on the matter, as the information on the DNA being on fossils probably came from talk origins.
Next, he answered my question about the evolution of the solar system by saying that it was not relevant to the debate, and to, once again, look at his source. The resolve says nothing about a certain type of evolution, as he seems to think. But, the solar system's supposed evolution, along with biological evolution, goes under the category of evolution. Therefore, I beleive that he did not know the answer to this question, and therefore tried to dodge it by saying that it was not relevant.
My opponents next answer to my question about the second law of thermodynamics was to refer to his source. It seems more and more like my opponent cannot answer my questions, and therefore tries to avoid them, but this does not go unnoticed.
Next, my opponent lies about the Cambrian Explosion, by saying, "It is a myth that the Cambrian explosion contradicts the tree of life, and it's a myth that trilobites and other forms mysteriously pop into existence". Neither of these are myths, and my opponent knows this, since he did not show any evidence saying otherwise.
Next, my opponent talks about vestigals, starting off by saying that I am wrong because I did not check his sources. But, I would like to hear from my opponent why what I had said in my 2nd round speech was wrong, and not just another refrence to his unreliable soucres. He tries to say that my argument was a contradiction of a creationist claim, that vestigal organs are decayed remnant and not examples of evolution. What I said does not contridict this, it is actually just another argument to explain vestigal organs. I'm gald he brought that up though, because it is just another argument to prove that vestigal organs do not prove evolution, and it therefore helps my argument.
Next, I would like to go over his final paragraph in his 3rd round rebutal. I have already explained why my sources are more reliable than his, and would like to say that he has not defended the foundations of the evolutionary theory, in the ways that I have just described. I would also like to point out that the resolve was not about defending the foundations of the evolutionary theory, but it was saying that evolution is a strongly supported fact of science, which I have proved, is not. I suggest that in any later debates on this matter that my opponent has, that you should stick to the resolve, and not try and change it like you have 3 times during your speech and rebutal. Next, he says that he has cleared up misunderstandings, which was once agian, off topic, and then attempts to say that I was off topic. I have proven that abiogenisis is relevant to this debate, and saying that I was off topic in our debate is ironic. He once more tries to argue that my sources were not reliable, but I have proven that they are and his sources are not. He then tries to tell me that I have been appealing to creationist propaganda, but if I must say it again, my sources were more reliable then his, and if anyone appealed to propaganda, and fake facts, it was my opponent. I have done a fine job of discrediting evolution, which was what I was supposed to do, and my opponent has surely not done what he was supposed to do, which is provide evidence for evolution. Also, the resolve was not for me to demonstrate a viable alternative, as in his first round, he clearly stated to keep religion and God out of this debate, which I have succeeded to do, and for him to bring up that I have not talked about a viable alternative, is a contridiction of the rules, and contridictions are something evolutionists are know to do.
For these reasons, I believe that I have won this debate, and thank my opponent for inviting me to it. I am glad we could have it, and hope that my opponent and I could discuss this matter sometime again in the future.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con presented themselves well in terms of conduct, as well as grammar and spelling with a few minor exceptions. However, the debate goes to Pro for the following reasons: 1. Con states that talkorigins is very biased. It is biased for a reason; it is based on peer-reviewed science journals. Meanwhile, he used sites that are biased themselves in the regard that most of them are religious. 2. He does not understand what a theory is as he states, "Evolution is THEORY and should be treated as such because of the many flaws in the theory that I will be pointing out." 3. Con uses the same old arguments that have been thoroughly refuted for decades, among them is their misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I can't help but wonder if he knows what the Zeroth Law is since he seems to know about thermodynamics. I'm not saying he doesn't, but I have learned that when creationists speak of thermodynamics they have no idea that there are more than two. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro- Con used several non-scientific, religious sources when the debate was supposed to be on science alone. Spelling and grammar to Pro for obvious reasons. Con simply repeated a great many incorrect and poorly constructed arguments against evolution, mostly appealing to ignorance or "arguments" that have been debunked for decades. Most of his argument is that if he doesn't understand how things like sexual reproduction or organ systems develop, evolution must not be true. Which is flawed reasoning at best. Con even resorts to the incredibly ridiculous "Thermodynamics" argument, proving his ignorance in the area of science in general and evolution in particular. Suffice it to say, this vote is a no-brainer to anyone with any sort of education in science.
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.