The Instigator
ZachTheGreat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ariesx
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Evolution is a theory that has no basis

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ariesx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 65031
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

ZachTheGreat

Pro

Evolution is only a theory and not a even close at all to truth like the Bible.
Ariesx

Con

You can say that evolution is just a theory, but most scientists accept this theory. Most scientists do not accept creation. They chose evolution over creation. The idea that God made everything in six days has became absurd. According to NaturualScience.com, we share 98% of our DNA with apes. There are also fragments that are found in Africa where they showed apes constantly evolving. The skull in Africa kept changing. This is evidence of an ever-changing, evolving race that became humans.
Debate Round No. 1
ZachTheGreat

Pro

According to evolution anything is possible. Right? If so isn't it possible for the God of the Bible to exist?
Ariesx

Con

By using your logic, I can say that the Hindu gods exist, or the Greek gods exist. I can say that there is a flying spaghetti monster up in the clouds.
Debate Round No. 2
ZachTheGreat

Pro

could you be wrong about everything you think you know?
Ariesx

Con

I believe in evidence, and logic. So far creation has none.
Debate Round No. 3
ZachTheGreat

Pro

if I were to have a Roman guard that was at the crucifixion of Jesus and watched him rise from the grave and wrote it down would you believe it? No. Because you don't believe in the bible. Which makes evidence irrelevant. my question still needs answered from last time.
Ariesx

Con

My answer to your question is that I should from time to time question myself. So yes. I also would like to say that I try to be as open minded as possible. If you could bring a historic account of that, than I will consider changing my mind.
Debate Round No. 4
ZachTheGreat

Pro

You are avoiding my question, could you be wrong about everything you think you know. You are avoiding it because you know the answer. You do not know if you are right or wrong and if you don't know, then why did you except this debate if you're not even sure.

if the earth were millions of years old the saltiness of the ocean would be thousands of time more concentrated then it currently is. There is your proof.

I would like you to vote not on your religion but who debated better and who answered more questions.
Ariesx

Con

I did answer your question(from time to time I have to question myself. So yes, I would like to keep an open mind). You cannot make me put an answer to your specifications. I also said that I believe in evidence, and logic. The argument with the most evidence has the right to be accepted. Also, you asked me a question on could everything that you know could be wrong. You should also ask yourself that question. I provided evidence for evolution. I provided the fossils found in Africa which showed that the ape's skull kept changing.

He provided an argument on the ocean being concentrated. He has no source for that argument, therefore how can I see if what he is saying is right.

That is the only bit of evidence he had. Asking me a question of could everything you know be wrong. That is also irrelevant to my case.

I would like for the voter to judge these arguments objectively. He gave no sources for his critique on evolution. Vote for con, because con had more logic, and evidence.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ZachTheGreat 2 years ago
ZachTheGreat
Con didn't have any evidence!
Posted by tyleremery2383 2 years ago
tyleremery2383
I was excited to see where this debate would go, but it turns out it's a troll debate. =(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
QTAY21
ZachTheGreatAriesxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the better argument. The only "evidence" that pro provided was about the ocean, but that wasn't sufficient. The point that pro was supposed to make was that evolution has no basis. Con however, talked about how most scientists believe in evolution. The fact that they do seems to prove that this theory definitely has enough basis, otherwise they wouldn't believe this theory. Thus, pro has failed to uphold his argument. Everything else tie, and yes, sources tie. "He provided an argument on the ocean being concentrated. He has no source for that argument, therefore how can I see if what he is saying is right." -Con. You can say the same for your argument, con. You did not include anything for your apes argument. Word of advice for both of you, provide actual sources by including links to articles, websites, videos.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ZachTheGreatAriesxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: it feels like pro misses con's crucial points within round one that at least show a basis for evolution. Pro just goes off about the bible and religion, barely scratching evolution. Thus con wins.