The Instigator
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
19debater19
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is a thing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 6 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,173 times Debate No: 41295
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

Romanii

Pro

Debate rules:
1) Don't use the Bible. It is not a science textbook. Disprove evolution by other means.

I will let you go ahead and present your argument first.
19debater19

Con

The Holy Bible disproves Evolution. Thy name, thou art in Heaven, exists. Therefore, evolution is BS, as proved by the Holy Bible.
Debate Round No. 1
Romanii

Pro

I refuse to continue debating this with you, as you intentionally broke the only rule I presented.
If you present a real argument next round, I will forget about this and continue the debate.
Somehow, I doubt that you will, though.
19debater19

Con

You can not disprove the Holy Bible.
Debate Round No. 2
Romanii

Pro

I am not debating the validity of the Bible with you; I'm debating the validity of the theory of Evolution.
19debater19

Con

Yet the Holy Bible proves creationism rather than Evolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Romanii

Pro

Yet the "Holy Bible" is not an accurate source of scientific information.
Evolution is a scientific concept. We are SUPPOSED to be debating in terms of science.
YOU are trying to turn this into a Biblical discussion.
I'm definitely re-doing this debate after this and I hope you aren't my opponent next time, too, because talking to you is a waste of time.
19debater19

Con

Evolution is a sack of high-proccessed bullsh!t!
Debate Round No. 4
Romanii

Pro

Yup. Of course. All the fossils and genetic evidence supporting evolution was all created by Satan. Definitely. No doubt about that.

No wonder atheists think religious people are stupid...
19debater19

Con

1) Birds disprove darwin\’s \"natural selection\". The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

2)Species without a link proves evolution wrong.
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists\’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solid within their DNA code.


3) Single cell complexity proves evoluion wrong.

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The theory of evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.


4)Human egg and sperm proves evolution wrong.

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother\’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic changes. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the male on a daily basis. This short time between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary theory. A harsh winter or some other environmental condition experienced by the male is quickly lost and cannot affect conception that may occur months later. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species is impossible.


5) DNA error checking

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.Mutations are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage and passed on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation. The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.


6)Chaos from organization

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos unless changed by an intelligent being.

Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler, \"One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness - the fact that, on the average, things will get into disorder rather than into order, if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.\" This scientific law actually refutes and contradicts the theory of evolution in its entirety. The whole universe is not getting better and more specialized; it is running down; it is wearing out.



Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
19debater19 has challenged me to another debate over this topic, and it seems that he is actually planning on trying this time. I any of you would like to follow the new debate, here's the link:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
3) I just want to add on that water (H2O) and formaldehyde (CH2O) often react to produce Ribose.

4) I don't understand what you said or how it disproves evolution. Can someone please explain what he said plainly?

5) We only notice lethal mutations more than beneficial mutations because lethal mutations are much, much, more obvious. The ones that are beneficial make such small changes that most people don't notice. That is why it takes hundreds of generations for even a small change in phenotype to occur within a population. I myself have a mutation which has made my all ligaments extremely loose. As a result, I have dislocated both my knees and one of my shoulders at least once, but at the same time I'm much more flexible than ordinary people. We don't notice the subtle mutations that don't kill us, but those small mutations have been the driving force behind evolution for 4.5 billion years.
And by the way, we HAVE been able to witness new species of bacteria evolving via gradual mutations over millions of generations within just a few months because of their minuscule life spans.

6) I personally am religious, however I still believe in evolution, like most religious people. God created life through evolution by causing "random" mutations in self-replicating organic compounds like DNA and RNA. I suppose this is where the theist evolutionists and atheist evolutionists diverge: whereas atheists believe that such complex organisms evolved by pure chance from random mutations, theists believe that the evolution of the complex organisms was directed by a divine power via purposeful mutations.

Religion and Science can both be true if only you will realize the truth that scripture wasn't meant to be taken literally. How do I (and most theists) know this? Because the guys who wrote the scripture weren't trying to write a science textbook or history textbook; they were trying to provide spiritual instruction and moral examples to live by.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Nonetheless,I will go ahead and counter your invalid arguments:

1) This evolutionary riddle has already been solved, and not in the way you think it did (using half-grown wings to climb trees...what?). Birds evolved from Dinosaurs, specifically the Therapods. There is fossil evidence that during the Cretaceous period, certain smaller species of therapods started to evolve feathers for the purposes of insulation and helping increase lift while jumping to catch insects. Therapods slowly evolved larger and larger feathers, and arms that looked more and more like wings, until bird-like dinosaurs such as Archaeopteryx and the Microraptor had evolved. From there it is quite easy to trace their lineage down to modern day birds.

2) "Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."
And your proof for this is... where? You have no idea what behind-the-scenes work has been done to prove evolution. Scientists never "make up information". There are many measures for avoiding that kind of thing within the scientific community such as allowing others to reproduce their experiments and study their findings. The only person I see making up information here is YOU.
And P.S. we have discovered fossils that clearly represent the ancestors of elephants and giraffes.

3) Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? It is very famous and the CLEARLY CREATED 20 different amino acids just by simulating the conditions of primitive earth with only inorganic matter on it. Almost all the types of organic matter have been determine to basically be rearrangements of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Phosphorus atoms.

4) to be posted next comment...
Posted by 19debater19 3 years ago
19debater19
@Pro

Accept my other argument, then!
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@Con:
That was a cheap move. Posting your real argument in round 5 so that I won't have a chance to counter it? How cowardly...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@iamanatheistandthisiswhy:
I'm not happy with how this debate turned out either. I'm definitely re-doing this debate after this.

@Nzrsaa:
How can you still claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible after watching that!!? Until you give a detailed explanation on how every contradiction in the video is a "misunderstanding", you can't claim that the Bible doesn't have any contradictions in it.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I am sad this debate went the way it did. It had potential to be great as I know what Romanii can bring to the table, come on Con try argue it.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
The Bible is an incrediably accurate source of historical information and to say otherwise is just ignorant I guess. The Gospels, for example, are probably the most accurate sources we have in the ancient world. They have no contradictions at all (any you think there are are just not at all) and are incredibly reliable forms of information about the life and times of Jesus. This is a very well know fact for historians.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
Romanii,

If you had much knowledge about the authorship of the Bible you would realise that it is a historic document. You would realise that the 66 books of the Bible were written by at least 39 authors over a period of at least 1,500 years.
Yes, they were divinely inspired. Moses had direct contact with God. Matthew was an apostle. Paul knew Jesus' family.
There are very, very few contradictions in the Bible. The vast majority of so called contradictions are merely either misunderstandings of the text, or those formed during translation.
I'd
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
I realize that. That is the reasoning I'm trying to use: God is a perfect, divine being, and his holy book wouldn't be so full of contradictions. While that alone doesn't prove that the Bible is an invalid source of historical information, it does prove that the Bible was NOT divinely inspired, and divine inspiration is the argument Christians most use when trying to prove that everything in the Bible is true word for word. In that sense, the video DOES sort of disprove the Bible as an accurate scientific/historical source.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
Romanii19debater19Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules of the debate
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Romanii19debater19Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible arguments by Con who broke the one rule of the debate, and then went full douchebag and presented arguemnts in the very last round of the debate so that pro couldnt respond to them. Arguments and conduct to the pro hands down
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Romanii19debater19Tied
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: All points to pro, con acted like a jerk in this debate.
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
Romanii19debater19Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con immediately went against the original terms of this debate, and acted in a manner not befitting a logical debate. Therefor, he looses both arguments and conduct.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Romanii19debater19Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: As I posted in the comments I thought this debate had much promise,yet it degenerated quickly as Con would not want to debate. I will follow the next debate more carefully,and good luck to both debaters there. So I am voting tie on this debate, and my real vote in the next debate will reflect my opinions of the arguments.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Romanii19debater19Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh, my God, I want to vomit.