The Instigator
FollowerofChrist1955
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Evolution is based on a Lie.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,862 times Debate No: 90592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (181)
Votes (1)

 

FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

Should be an easy debate. Atheist have been using evolution as a crutch for who knows how long!

I say Evolution is a Lie because they used an ADULT in their Model, which is inherently impossible. Everyone knows life on Earth did not form as adults of each species! Invariably then they would have formed as newborn of each species!

PROBLEM: They'd been dead in a week, no possibility that a Newborn COULD SURVIVE much less to ADULTHOOD without an Adult to feed, water and protect them in a harsh environment .... so How did life begin?

There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED as adults of each species? So SCIENCE'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS BASED ON INACCURATE DATA ..... OR AS I WOULD CALL IT .... A LIE!!!!!

There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED from Newborns of each species, because they would NOT have survived to adulthood?

Consequently Life by all scientific constructs .... SHOULD NOT EXIST!

ONLY Earths creation by a being capable of creating life AS adults could plausibly accomplish Life's Beginnings.

I say God created life on Earth, because Science has no viable or feasible explanation that can seriously be considered to the alternative! But you can certainly try. I figure if the greatest minds of science couldn't do it and HAD to use an adult model .... KNOWING life doesn't FORM as ADULTS. Neither can you?
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for this debate.
I reject this resolution, that evolution is based on a lie, because evolution is based on sound fact.
Also, there were no definitions provided by the instigator in round 1, so to keep us on a reasonable track, I'll supply definitions.


*Definitions*

evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

based - have as the foundation for (something).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

lie - an intentionally false statement.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


*The Resolution Is Not True*

I'll be brief, but the resolution is not true, and here's why:

1. genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on than genetic characteristics that don't allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

2. speciation has been directly observed in hawthorn-->apple maggot fly
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

3. human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is definitive evidence that humans descended from apes.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

4. early hominid fossils explain our bipedal-ism and ancestry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Unfortunately, it seems, given Pro's hostility towards evolution, these evidences may all be ignored by Pro, but they should indicate to people who wish to actually have a reasonable discussion about evolution that evolution is NOT based on a lie.


*Pro's Issues With Evolution*

Pro claims:
"Evolution is a Lie because they used an ADULT in their Model...Everyone knows life on Earth did not form as adults of each species! Invariably then they would have formed as newborn of each species!"

My response:
Where to start?
Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth.
Evolution may lead to the idea that life on earth formed from inorganic substances, but the definition of evolution DOES NOT include the origin of life on earth; abiogenesis does, and abiogenesis is not the topic at hand.

Also, Pro just asserts that the evolution model includes life originating as adults...I have no idea where Pro got that idea from, and I'm not sure I understand what Pro means.
Pro could you explain yourself and indicate some source that has evolution claiming adult origins?


Pro continues:
"no possibility that a Newborn COULD SURVIVE much less to ADULTHOOD without an Adult to feed, water and protect them in a harsh environment .... so How did life begin?"

My response:
Do bacteria need to be watered by an external agent?
Also, evolution is not in the business of how life began, rather it's an explanation of existing life's biodiversity.
Many organisms, like bacteria and plants, don't need an adult to take care of them, and in some cases of bacteria, they don't even need other bacteria to reproduce, as they can self reproduce by binary fission.


Pro keeps stabbing:
"There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED as adults of each species? So SCIENCE'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS BASED ON INACCURATE DATA ..... OR AS I WOULD CALL IT .... A LIE!!!!!"

My response:
Evolution does NOT claim anything about the origins of life, though they may be implicated by it, nor does it claim that life formed as adults of each species...again Pro's claim is largely unclear, and it doesn't really make much sense.


Pro adds:
"There is no natural explanation or possibility that life FORMED from Newborns of each species, because they would NOT have survived to adulthood"

My response:
Evolution is not about how life formed, it's about how life diversifies/has diversified, and organisms survive to adulthood by adapting to and avoiding constraints.
Not all organisms need an adult to survive to adulthood.


Pro asserts:
"ONLY Earths creation by a being capable of creating life AS adults could plausibly accomplish Life's Beginnings"

My response:
This has nothing to do with evolution, again evolution is just the diversification of life, not the origin of it.
However, i would like to know, what proof do you have of this bald assertion Pro?


Pro again asserts:
"I say God created life on Earth, because Science has no viable or feasible explanation that can seriously be considered to the alternative! But you can certainly try. I figure if the greatest minds of science couldn't do it and HAD to use an adult model .... KNOWING life doesn't FORM as ADULTS. Neither can you?"

My response:
Pro, did you want to actually want to debate abiogenesis?
While I would be happy to do this, in another debate, the origin of life is not part of evolution directly, thus not part of this debate...none of your problems with evolution have to do with evolution.

Ok, so on to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

Rejection is the foundational basis for all atheists, agnostics and whatever ists may otherwise exists, so NO SURPRIZE HERE! I find Con to be pleasant, a bit too trusting perhaps, EXCEPTIONALLY Gullible, as are all atheist but " likeable, as such I call him ..friend!

The problem lies NOT in what Con"s literature STATES, it IS WHAT it fails to SHOW ". A creature OUTSIDE a microscope! Not a single living animated creature! NOT ONE! That includes the ENTIRETY of his sources! Read it for yourself, Scan the document see if you CAN FIND the elusive creature " nope, not there " just microbes, bacteria, simple cell life " NONE which have become or becoming creatures one can see WITHOUT the aid of a microscope!

The unbelieving man is forever doomed to be duped by turn of phrase, eloquence of tongue. Scientist like politicians has developed the art of claiming without showing, purporting without Reporting. Exclaiming without providing, praises of SOUND FACT ". From Scientific Reports that are replete with such words as". Suggests, implies, eludes to, likely shows, possibly, feasible " practicable " practical " viable " attainable " achievable " workable " doable " realizable " realistic " sensible " reasonable " within reason " suitable " possible " expedient
fact. NOUN
1.a thing that is indisputably the case:
synonyms: reality " actuality " certainty " truth " verity " gospel
Ahhhh YES GOSPEL!

"I reject this resolution, that evolution is based on a lie, because evolution is based on sound fact."
Notice the use of Con"s DECLARATION "sound fact" without the need to PRODUCE indisputable evidence, which alone IS FACT!
As to Con"s *Definitions*
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
ACTUAL definition:
Definition of evolution in English:
evolution - 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 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 ENTIRE statement above was ". Shall we say ". Conveniently left out? ****

2 throught 5 had no bearing on this topic! Was not provided because they indeed had no bearing on the topic, THE STATEMENT however most certainly applied! Uh,uh,uh, must not deceive the readers con?

based - have as the foundation for (something).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......

ACTUAL definition:
1 (base something on) Use (something specified) as the foundation or starting point for something:
2 Situate at a specified place as the centre of operations:
"the Science Policy Review Unit IS BASED at the University of Sussex" (Capitalization inserted for clarity)

lie - an intentionally false statement.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
ACTUAL definition:
1An intentionally false statement:
1.1Used with reference to a situation INVOLVING DECEPTION or FOUNDED on a MISTAKEN IMPRESSION:
***another attempt to deceive readers?**** yes he LIED! By the very textbook definition, he quotes himself!

1. genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on than genetic characteristics that don't allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu......
Gene: noun
Biology
1(In informal use) a unit of heredity which is transferred from A PARENT to offspring and is held to determine some characteristic of the offspring: (capitals for clarity)
*****What PARENT are we talking about here Con?****

1.1(In technical use) a distinct sequence of nucleotides forming part of a chromosome, the order of which determines the order of monomers in a polypeptide or nucleic acid molecule which a cell (or virus) may synthesize.
***again the microscopic *****

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. HAHAHAHAH! did I say gullible?
Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
https://hogewash.files.wordpress.com...
Chimpanzee, Dog, Mouse Chicken, FruitFly, Roundworn "..

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...
So ponder this: the Fe (iron) in your blood was at some point many, many billions of years ago in the center of a star that has since then ceased to exist.
( hahahahah I'm sorry I couldn't help myself)

YES***SCIENCE IS ACTUALLY SAYING THIS?**** YOUR ACTUALLY ROGER RAM-JET! Star-man- the Last Star-Fighter, Cosmic Dust... Oh PLEASE!

****The Question is FAST BECOMING just HOW STUPID IS Man!**** How desperate, to believe in ANYTHING BUT God!

3. human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes-Crap, and more crap, opinions, conjecture no proof!
human produce human, ape, produce ape, crap produces crap!

http://blog.drwile.com...
In 2002, Study found that those sections of DNA were about 95% similar.
In 2003, Study looked that found only 87% similarity.
Then things became a lot clearer"sort of. In 2005, the complete draft sequence of the chimpanzee genome was published.
Result? the entire chimpanzee genome could be compared to the entire human genome found that 75% similar. However, given that 3% of those base pairs don"t line up perfectly, human and chimp DNA are about 72% similar. Several geneticists have obviously looked at these data, and there are those who think the number will eventually drop below 72% once all the data are in.
In fact, Dr. Richard Buggs (geneticist at the University of Florida) says
I predict that when we have a reliable, complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of the human genome will prove to be close to 70% (and very far from 99%).6

In spite of what the data say, PBS asserts the following:
Today, many a schoolchild can cite the figure perhaps most often called forth in support of [a common ancestor for apes and humans]"namely, that we share almost 99 percent of our DNA with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. 7

I think PBS needs to stop listening to schoolchildren when it comes to evidence for evolution. Of course, the big question is: If 99% similarity was such strong evidence for a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, will 70% similarity be considered evidence against a common ancestor? Of course not! Evolution can use special pleading to accommodate any data. It does so with the fossil record, homology, etc. Why not do it with genome similarities as well?

Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth. Really?
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human ..., Evolution 101: Human Evolution, human evolution | Britannica.com, Human Evolution News " ScienceDaily, human evolution Facts, information, pictures ...
Now shall we dispense with the BULL Con?
IF you didn"t KNOW we were talking about HUMAN evolution WHICH I KNOW IS A LIE, and the reader need ONLY read the comment section to know that YOU KNEW we were talking about HUMAN EVOLUTION!
MagicAintReal

Con

Wow, that was incoherent!
Thanks anyway for that "response" Pro; I'm ever moved by random capital letters and series of chaotic words strung together.


*The Resolution Is Still False*

I maintain that evolution is NOT based on a lie, because it's based on sound evidence, and Pro has not given us any reason to ignore the sources I've provided, which definitively demonstrate that evolution is a fact.

Pro also has a massive confusion between the origins of life and biodiversity, with *only* the latter being an explanation of evolution.

From round 1, the definition of evolution, the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms, mentions nothing about how life ORIGINATED, only how it diversified.

For this debate, I've taken a Con position that naturally defends evolution, so that is the only explanation I will defend in this debate; I won't defend abiogenesis, which explains the natural origin of life.

But check the avatar, I will not let the claims assaulted on the natural origin of life go unanswered.
Luckily, I debated abiogenesis already, and it has all the sources one needs to read and learn about the wonderfully explanatory fact of abiogenesis.
http://www.debate.org...

But again, the origin of life is not the focus of this debate, so Pro's assault on the natural origin of life should be reserved for a debate on abiogenesis and dismissed when voting.


*Refuting Pro*

Pro complains:
"Con"s literature...fails to SHOW a creature OUTSIDE a microscope!"

My response:
The source I provided in round 1, listed as #2, was a study that observed speciation in hawthorn-->apple maggot fly, in the wild, as they speciated.
To me, this SHOWS a creature outside of a microscope, and it shows that evolution is not based on a lie; speciation isn't a lie.


Pro asserts:
"Not a single living animated creature! NOT ONE! That includes the ENTIRETY of his sources!"

My response:
Are flies not creatures?
What am I missing here?
Also, I argue that my human chromosome 2 source, listed as #3 in round 1, involves humans and older apes, which are both animated creatures...Pro, did you actually read my sources?


Pro emboldens his dishonesty:
"Read it for yourself, Scan the document see if you CAN FIND the elusive creature"

My response:
Ok, I'm scanning, and, ah yes, there it is, right there in round 1, flies, humans and older apes.
Hmm, I figured elusive creatures would be a little more...elusive.
Also, none of my sources mention microbes or bacteria as Pro claimed.


Pro indicates:
"Notice the use of Con"s DECLARATION "sound fact" without the need to PRODUCE indisputable evidence, which alone IS FACT!"

My response:
I did provide you with indisputable evidence that humans evolved from older apes, you just ignored it.
Here it is again.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

Humans' 2nd chromosome is a CONFIRMED fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
The uniquely older ape base pairs are CONFIRMED to be there, genes fuse all of the time, and it explains our divergence from chimps, who also descended from a common older ape ancestor.
Confirmed, not suggested, or implied...confirmed.


Pro gives a definition for the word "gene:"
"a unit of heredity which is transferred from A PARENT to offspring and is held to determine some characteristic of the offspring."

My response:
Yeah, so?

Pro continues:
"What PARENT are we talking about here Con?"

My response:
parent - an animal or plant from which younger ones are derived.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

You know, like, the thing that does the reproducing...the parent.


Pro placates:
"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. HAHAHAHAH! did I say gullible?"

My response:
Organisms inherit genes from their predecessors.
Gene fusion occurs.
Human's 2nd chromosome is a fused gene made of two ape chromosomes.
Humans therefore inherited a fused gene from their predecessors, older apes, and this shows common descent.


Pro adds:
"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

My response:
I don't know if I would say distant "cousin," but yeah, all life is genetically related... humans share about 44% of the same genes as fruit flies and about 26% of the same genes as yeast, which is a fungus.
https://www.koshland-science-museum.org...


Pro gets cosmological:
"The Fe (iron) in your blood was at some point many, many billions of years ago in the center of a star that has since then ceased to exist."

My response:
Great, when we have our cosmology debate, you should try to bring that up, but since we're still here in old evolution town, we've gotta stay on track.
I do agree though that the atoms in your body were once inside of a star...we are star stuff.


*Chromosome 2 Defense*

We might have something of a debate here, if only briefly.

Pro asserts:
"human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes-Crap, and more crap, opinions, conjecture no proof!
human produce human, ape, produce ape, crap produces crap!"

My response:
The fusion was confirmed, but you didn't bother to read the source.
Unique older ape DNA sequences, only found in two separate chromosomes in apes, are *precisely* what make up our 2nd chromosome.
Check figure 6 of the chromosome 2 source:
http://genome.cshlp.org...


Pro mentions unsourced studies:
"In 2002...in 2003...in 2005...RIchard Buggs"

My response:
Yeah, the source I provided was from 2012, and puts to bed all of your unsourced studies you claim to exist from the past.
Oh and Dr. Richard Buggs's prediction on the human genome's similarity is as irrelevant as it is useless.
Check the peer-reviewed CONFIRMED evidence from 2012, updated with studies that show the fusion site of chromosome 2 to have anywhere from 90%-100% identical to older ape base pairs.


Pro obliviously asks:
"Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life on earth. Really?"

My response:
Yes, really!
That's what I've been trying to tell you this whole time.
Abiogenesis explains the natural origins of life on earth, not evolution, so check my debate on the former.


*Conclusion*

Pro has no idea what evolution is, and instead has constructed an incoherent, dishonest straw man, which, if Pro could figure it out, is a actually an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution.

Pro, you wanna debate abiogenesis?
If yes, set it up, send it to me, and you can unleash your chaotic wrath on me there...it just doesn't apply here Pro.

For the contentions with human chromosome 2, I invite anyone to read the source that I have provided on this, because it's not too sciency and it's fascinatingly explanatory of what a human is genetically, a modern ape.
Debate Round No. 2
FollowerofChrist1955

Pro

Unfortunately for us ALL, Con persists in lies ... Clearly Con was never QUALIFIED to accept this debate ... OBSERVE in the comments section FIRST COMMENTS BETWEEN Pro and Con. EVIDENCE Con KNEW ORIGINS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION was the topic!

Pro will Show evolution is as False in every aspect WHEN IT COMES TO THE ORIGINS OF LIFE! You shall be shown clear indisputable evidence, that Science has conspired to submit conjectures, theories, and postulations as FACTS ... which IS in accordance with the textbook definition of a Lie! As stated below:
That a LIE is ALSO the misrepresentation of facts BY mistaken impression .... or as I ACCURATELY CALLED IT INACCURATE DATA!
definition: From oxforddictionary.com
1An intentionally false statement:
1.1Used with reference to a situation INVOLVING DECEPTION or FOUNDED on a MISTAKEN IMPRESSION:

Rather than provide any kind of evidence, Con has submitted reports from science literature which when read ... revealed themselves nothing more than hypothesis. At no point in time, under ANY references provided by Con, was there a link provided where the READER, could witness OR observe the actual Living ORGANIC creature that purportedly emerged from an INORGANIC SOURCE! ZERO, ZILCH, NOTHING, NADA!

Case in point .... the ENTIRETY of the debate Con has drawn sole attention to the Microscopic world. Citing THIS IS LIFE ... PROOF OF EVOLUTION! How sad! Who may I ask has DECLARED BEFORE THE WORLD ... THIS IS LIFE? Of COURSE, the SAME people who have ravaged your minds with pointless, unproved theories, hypothesis, conjectures, passing them ALL off as ..... dare I say it? ........ SOUND fact?

Clearly Con doesn't KNOW the definition of FACT! Not a thing provided by con was REMOTELY INDISPUTABLE!

When called upon to provide legitimate proof, of Evolution HE (Con) in DESPERATION throws out the very evidence that DISPROVED his evolution, without even realizing it! Isn't that exactly HOW evolutionist got suckered to BEGIN WITH! Closing their Minds to TRUTH, and grasping for anything that allows them to CONTINUE in the deception - that they can do whatever they want because they're not being held accountable? But that to is a lie! The worse kind of a LIE ... the LIE TO SELF!

In Con's piteous and desperate attempt to distract readers by misdirection and camouflage! He grasp at the maggot! Uh,uh,uh Con? You CANNOT USE things that CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN LIVING ORGANISMS ..... which is exactly what evolution attempts to refute!

EVOLUTION CLAIMS THAT LIFE CAME INTO BEING FROM THE INORGANIC MATTER ... not ORGANIC?
ALL readers are aware .... or certainly SHOULD BE aware, that maggots only form from the decomposing bodies of the living, as the living cells BEGIN TO DIE.... I put it to you plainly .... WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN MAGGOTS FORM from a rock, or dirt or concrete, or lime, or gravel ...... NEVER! They ONLY FORM when THE LIVING DIES.

Second point ..... WHEN HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A microscopic MAGGOT form at the death of a single cell organism? NOT a MICROSCOPIC MAGGOT to be seen anywhere under the microscope! NOT ONE! WHY?

Maggot- A soft-bodied legless larva of a fly or other insect, found in decaying matter:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

FOUND IN DECAYING MATTER! if your NOT ALIVE YOU CANNOT DECAY, therefore NO MAGGOT!

since they are completely ABSENT when a single or multicell dies in vitro

Definition of in vitro in English:
Biology - (Of a process) performed or taking place in a test tube, culture dish, or elsewhere outside a living organism:

Did you get THAT? OUTSIDE A LIVING ORGANISM!!!!!!! therefore NOT LIVING!

Despite Scientist general Consensus as to WHAT IS OR IS NOT LIFE, does NOT CONSTITUTE A FACT! Science simply cannot continue to GIVE definitions and then purposely CONTRADICT THEM when it suits their STUDIES!

Definition: inorganic
1Not consisting of or deriving from living matter.
1.1Without organized physical structure.
2 Chemistry Relating to or denoting compounds which are not organic (broadly, compounds not containing carbon).

DO I REALLY HAVE TO TELL YOU THERE WAS NO LIFE ON EARTH AT FIRST? SO the microscopic IS NOT LIFE, no matter who says it IS, cause it DOES NOT DECAY!

Scientist CONTINUALLY contradict themselves, WHY mankind foolishly continues to place such credence on an obviously FLAWED system is beyong incredible .... but? Whatever.

That 4 BILLION humans have gambled AND LOST their very Souls, on the patently absurd is beyond understanding! Still, there IS TIME!

Life began instantly, supernaturally, it HAD too, there is simply NO other logical nor rationale way for life to have started. Continue to delude yourself if you wish. The EVIDENCE proves YOU ARE WRONG on life's beginnings, so you'd better figure something ELSE out and stop believing the incredible stupid!

Evolution IS A LIE based on INACCURATE DATA, false information, false unproven theories passed as facts, hypothesis, without evidence of truth in even a single report! Data IS manipulated to agree with hypothesis and conjecture ... NOT the other way around!
MagicAintReal

Con

Anyone who actually read this debate saw my arguments that indicate evolution is not based on a lie, clearly laid out with sources and explanations.
I do realize that I never explained the source listed as #4 in round 1, but I didn't really need to, because Pro never challenged my sources directly; the source shows homology of ape foot fossils and our feet bones.

Either way, this debate was likely rather frustrating for voters to read.
I didn't know I was walking into a chaotic stream of consciousness riddled with errors and spastic bouts of capital letters and exclamation marks before I accepted this debate.

So, to those who usually enjoy my debates, sorry for my opponent; someone let him out of his cage.

*Conclusion*

I think it's fair that I don't respond to Pro's 3rd round, because it is as irrelevant as it is annoying.
I invite readers to actually read aloud Pro's 3rd round following the rule that capital letters are YELLED.
Now, how does that sound?
One reading this aloud sounds like a spastic kid yelling to his mom while jumping on a trampoline, and it really did hurt Pro's argument, because there was no cohesion or coherency to balance out all that spaz.

Readers, please look at the definitions from round 1.
Evolution is a process by which organisms diversified, not the process by which life originated on earth.
Yet all of Pro's contentions are with life origination.

Evolution is based on evidence, like the sources I provided 1st round, and not based on a lie.
Pro has not shown any of my sources to be unreliable or invalid, rather has mistakenly claimed that they show organisms in a microscope and emerging from inorganic matter; check my sources, none of that is there.

Speciation is a fact and is not a lie, and evolution is based on speciation, which occurs by descent with modification/natural selection.

Thanks for enduring, and I hope all readers truly understand what evolution ISN'T.

...Ok, every once in a while all caps is fine.
BUT NOT ALL OF THE TIME!!!

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
181 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Figeon
Your soul, your decision, your consequence!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
MagicAintReal ;
You can't lie your way out of this I have better evidence than you ... that you refuse to accept the truth does not negate that truth. Life began by God creating the Atom, to form all around you, followed by DNA to form the Life around you .... they were created as adults not as babies, this is where the reproductive process began and WHY (emphasis) it still remains unchanged today.

Basic biology, all plants come from seed no other way to grow them without seed. No insects or birds, humans , mammals, can have offspring without the internal or external egg, that has never changed, Those that produce asexually still form from internal egg, by parent and birthed live. That remains the constant in the entirety of the planet every one knows this, even you people. But you foolishly by off that somehow life began billions of years ago ... but you can't show how, and your reports never show you examples that you can see you just have to take their word for it .... even when the entire time you KNOW (emphasis) what must take place for an offspring to be conceived, but it's as if your willing to believe an impossibility, over something that not only IS possible, but entirely more plausible, than life coming from nothing ... you DENY TRUTH!

The atom cannot be touched,, yet everything you touch is made of atoms ... atoms ca exist alone, they do not require connection .... that they are attaching to one another is possible only to form objects for Life to exist upon! Fact, if the atoms release from one another, the computer your using now would very vanish, instantaneously .... is that not evidence of supernatural ability in creation?

You cannot deny what you have not studied, so .... live with that or prove otherwise. You won't because Life existence is the proof of Creation by God ... as Bible said.
Posted by Figeon 9 months ago
Figeon
This is my final response to you FOC as I've realized there's a point one has to give up on arguing against ignorant people.

Please go back to school and correct your sentences so they are coherent.

If you are seeing "visions of god", you might want to go see a psychiatrist.

Peace out.
Posted by Chaosism 9 months ago
Chaosism
@FollowerofChrist1955
"The proof of God is in DNA and the Atoms creation, I would attempt to explain them but your either to blind or to stupid to figure it out!"

OK, I've just flipped my internal "ignore the Truth" switch off. Ahh, now I see! Praise Allah, the one true God, for all of creation!
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
@FOC
You have no evidence.
Please go away.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Chaosism ;
The proof of God is in DNA and the Atoms creation, I would attempt to explain them but your either to blind or to stupid to figure it out! like the rest of the world, you seek signs and wonders, you want OTHERS to prove to you .... what your to lazy, ignorant or foollish to look for yourself.

I tell you and all who are reading this now to turn from your slumber, seek the truth, or be condemned for your laziness. The choice is yours. You needn't flaunt your ignorance here. everyone knows you base everything an unsubstantiated reports, endless mounds of reports that violate even what you already know of life sciences, yet are so blind that you don't question their data for it's inaccuracy ... you believe a lie . God said you would, he also said your going to be held accountable for your choice!

Like the others, part of your punishment will be forever remembering our discussions, knowing you were given a chance to listen, but refused .... and in between your screams, you will remember me!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Figeon;
Didn't bother to even read did you. Then Hell is where you will go. Can't do anything to help you. Remember, when you see your destruction come, Remember ... our conversation, in between your screams, in between your suffering, know you were given a chance, a chance the magic man? may NOT offer you again!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Figeon; continued from below.
So there it is! in a nutshell, the world believes anything sight unseen.

So how was life created on Earth! God created it, there are many proofs, but only for someone who REALLY WANTS TO KNOW TRUTH! (emphasis)

I don't waste my time attempting to reach those who have no interest in any truth but their own! Magic would say at this point ... well isn't that what your doing .... just passing off YOUR .... blah, blah, blah!

No I'm not ... you see I TOO was once as big an idiot as he is now! I've met God personally, and I see every day Gods working in my life, so myself and 2 billion other people already KNOW God is real ... worse, we know exactly whats going to happen and when, not actual dates or anything ... nobody knows that, But God provides with proofs, we can see and follow that shows us where we are in God's plan.

I know Heaven is real, I know Hell, is real, I know that from here on EVERYTHING is going to keep getting worse, not better, I know that God will be thrown out of everyday Life, I know that God will be hated by the non-believing, I know That the people who are going to hell, call Evil Good, and Good evil. I know that Evil is increasing exponentially, and will continue. I know that God is being outlawed in America .... but here's the really freaky part.

In a moment of time, in the twinkle of an eye ... in a single day .... your life and world will be plunged into destruction from which none can escape. It will come in a moment, like the crash of 1928, in a single moment of time ... disaster will strike and will begin a time unlike anything ever experienced before or since .... here's the thing .... I believe as do the majority of Believers today .... YOUR going to be here to SEE IT (emphasis). How do we know? you ask? Simple ... we can READ!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Figeon; continued from below.
Now SO DESPERATE (emphasis) are they that the people like Magic, will then grasp at the stupid ... welllll, some lizards and frogs give birth without laying eggs and fertilizing them .... Hello Mcfly! They are produced by egg in the LIVE lizard, and birthed, asexually ... not appearing from non-living inorganic material, so essentially having NOTHING (emphasis) to do with evolutionist theories ... so it's still false. Life only comes from Life and No amount of explosions, cosmic souping or lightning strikes creates a living animal .... not a single experiment created a living creature!

BUT (emphasis) nope, people like Magic ain't gonna let something as trivial as truth stand in their way ... Like a spoiled child they whip out yet another report how a scientist somewhere show the equivalent into a petrie dish and "BAM" a small single cell microbe was born ..... "GASP" OHHHHHH, AHHHHHHH!

And where is this elusive creature? In a petrie dish somewhere or dead! See it didn't grow into anything but that lonely single cell, that WHEN it died .... not a single maggot was formed .... want to know why? Cause Maggots only form on decaying Living THINGS .... not on inorganic things!

Oh well, now you see the frustration I feel when it's as if the entire world, have deliberately turned off their ability to reason ..... and simply by a report, without ever even THINKING (emphasis) of how it contradicts what they themselves already KNOW TO BE FACT in the Life Sciences biology 101!
Posted by Figeon 9 months ago
Figeon
Your lack of ignorance astonishes me. Evolution does not explain the initial beginnings of life in any way shape or form. It explains the diversity of life over time.

But what's even funnier is that you think it's impossible that theories including abiogenisis even exist despite proof. You're basically saying that we don't completely understand the world through science yet so there must be a magic man in the sky that created everything. Scientists actually experiment to get to the real answers instead of spreading falsities around like you. For example, everyone used to think the world was flat until scientists and mathematicians proved it real. There are explanations for everything including the beginning of life but scientists just have to keep experimenting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 9 months ago
Chaosism
FollowerofChrist1955MagicAintRealTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: *RFD Given in Comments*