The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
125 Points

Evolution is false, for more than three reasons, these are some of them.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 21 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 23,338 times Debate No: 9027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (66)
Votes (21)

 

GodSands

Pro

In this debate, I will point out that evolution is false for many reasons. I will begin with Darwin and how he narrowly mindly thought up evolution due to the way he saw the creatures and the universe around us.

Darwin was brought up in a rich family, had his college paid for and all was well for him. Like Adam, God made a perfect world for him to live in, all the fruit to eat, no paid, no death, amazing land to live it. Life was at it's full. When Darwin grew up, his father wanted him to go learn science at college, but instead Darwin did not want to, he wanted to explore nature and its glory by him self. Adam also disobeyed God and was drawn in by the serpent, Satan.

Darwin then journied around the world. On his voyage he saw that some birds, which were finches. He saw that the beaks were different sizes. After 20 years of writing his book, Origin of Species. Dawin conluded that there was no need for God, so there must be no God. Due to him thinking that God allowed his daughter to die aged 10. I would have thought that the death of his two daughers and one son would had of lead him to publish the book, Origin of Species.

I will now list what is wrong about evolution.

1) This is my main reason and it is a very good reason to not believe and place faith into evolution. According to evolution we as a race have evolved over 10's of millions of years from a single celled orginism. If this is true, how can we trust our eyes, nose, ears, touch and taste? For if we have evolved over many millionms of years how are we 100% sure that you are in the part at 4:25 on a hot summers day? When really you are in a small room being told to stand up against the wall, to be shot? How can anyone prove I am not true, if they believe in evolution.

Better solution: God created me, and since God is the creator of the universe I can fully trust 100% in all of my five great and wonderful gifts given by God. To see what I am see is real and legit, I am witnessing and knowing that all my five senors are living reality, and truth.

2) Fossils do not prove evolution in the slightest, as said by Kend Hovind. You do not know that any fossil had any offspring, and since science is factual and theories and made up of facts, evolution stuggles on this one alot. It is not a fact that every creature gives birth, but it is a fact that creatures give birth. It is also not a fact that a certian gound of creatures had any offspring. So it is pure asumption to say that this creature evolved into this other creature. It is a guessing game, it is far more realistic (relating to the previous question) that all creatures have a common designer (God) rather than common ancestors.

Better solution: There was a world wide flood, causing all living thing which did not enter the ark to drown. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights but the earth was not fully covered by water in till 6 months pasted. Under the crust of the earth there was a layer of water which seeped through the groud, which took around 6 months to submerge the earth utterly. Men would have continued to find higher ground in till there was no higher ground to live upon, same goes for the creatures. This is why scientists fine fossils of creature thousands of feet up, on a mountian. The flood also explains the reason why scientists find sea fossils on mountain tops. Since, of course, the water from the flood covered even the highest mountain.

3) No missing links: It is either one creature or another, there is never a creature where a group of scientists will say, "It is this creature, and it is also this creature!" The missing link would need to consist of a creature which has the skeleton of one creature and of another, otherwise the creature does not change, but remains like another other creature of it's kind (kind, by which I mean the horse, bear, and human kind, for examples).

Better solution: God said, "Ever creature will only bring forth it's own kind." I have never seen anything other than that. And I am sure you have not either. You say, "It takes millions of year." In that case there are no missing links. For if I can see a missing link dead, I should see a missing link alive. DNA does not contain or collect any new information, but if modified you can only take away features by taking away DNA or add DNA which it already has. Sure you can add DNA from a lion into a mouse but the lions DNA will not correctly work with its organs and general build. Even if you could, the mouse will still be a mouse, as a animal is classed mostly by it's actions and behavior. (A monkey dressed in human cloths and walking around does not impose the monkey is at human). It is a monkey still, same with the mouse.

The most vital reason why evolution is a scam is the first reason. If you can not trust in your eyes etc, how can you trust what you see as science really being science?

I will leave this to Con to discover. I wish him/her the best.
Kleptin

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent and the audience for this debate on evolution and look forward to critiquing and rebutting my opponent's assertion that

A: Evolution is false
B: Evolution is false for more than three reasons
C: The three reasons provided in my opponent's opening argument are some of the reasons why Evolution is false.

Since the above three points completely and totally summarize my opponent's resolution and burden, I will be arguing such:

A: That my opponent's "proofs" against Evolution are flawed
B: That there are no more than (if any) 3 reasons why Evolution is false.
C: That the reasons my opponent has stated in his opening argument are not reasons that show that Evolution is false, by any means.

I shall now begin the debate by summarizing, analyzing, and critiquing my opponent's opening remark for clarification on the part of the audience as well as myself.

My opponent's argument can be broken down into 3 parts:

1. Epistemology
2. Fossil Interpretation
3. Transitional Fossils

EPISTEMOLOGY

Motive: My opponent's motive is a standard Reductio ad absurdum argument in which he tries to show that the acceptance of Evolution yields an absurd conclusion and thus, should be rejected. His argument is that if we accept evolution, we cannot be sure of our senses, and since this is an absurd situation, evolution must be absurd.

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

Logical Fallacies:
1. Non Sequitor
http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)

My opponent's argument does not follow. Evolution does not imply that out senses are inaccurate. Our senses have evolved in order for us to be able to react to our environment, not so that we can find ultimate truth. The fact that our senses are adequate prove that this point is enough to invalidate my opponent's entire proof.

2. Flawed Premise

My opponent's argument assumes that the inaccuracy of our senses is an absurd situation. However, this is not the case. People are unable to detect things that we know to be there through technology. People also see things that are not what they appear. The inaccuracy of our senses is not an absurd situation, it is very commonplace.

In addition, his alternative of saying that our senses are god-given do not imply that they are accurate either. If this were the case, then we should have perfect senses since God is perfect. Why is it then that there are so many flaws with our senses? My opponent's argument is the one that reduces to absurdity.

This source addresses my opponent's argument directly. It is well documented and archived, thus, it can be debunked conveniently through this site:

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

Conclusion: My opponent's argument is lacking in logical structure, fatally flawed, and easily disproven with a few examples. Thus, it is not an acceptable "reason" for judging Evolution to be false and should be rejected by the audience.

FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION

Motive: My opponent suggests that fossil evidence is interpreted incorrectly; we cannot know whether a fossilized specimen reproduced, so this invalidates fossil evidence as evidence for evolution.

Logical Fallacies:

There are no logical fallacies, but many errors due to distortion and reinterpretation as well as ignorance of scientific principles.

1. My opponent states that science "struggles" with what he stated. I find that there is no struggle and since he offers no citation, I place my own credibility on the

line as a Science student against his word. If there truly is such a "struggle", then I respectfully ask my opponent to offer proof, or else we can assume that this statement is not credible.

Fossils are not seen as individual specimens. Rather, they are representative of their species. We can say with a relative amount of certainty that the specimen was part of a species if we find more fossils of its kind. This is very common occurrence. Furthermore, since fossils from the same species are found in various levels of strata, this indicates that reproduction in the species has occurred if the species continues several thousand years after the first specimen. My opponent's allegation that we cannot infer reproduction has taken place is thus, incorrect.

As per my opponent's alternative explanation, I do not see any citations. I respectfully request that my opponent give his source. However, I see that the main core of my opponent's argument is that the Great Flood deposited the geologic column. This site directly addresses this issue, debunks it, and provides credible citations as well.

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

The main gist is that aside from fossils, the geologic column shows a vast amount of history in great expanses of time. For example: Climate change that matches recorded history, footprints, mud cracks, raindrop imprints, layers of sediment formed in ways that require long periods of time, and various other things. Please see the source.

In addition, my opponent talks about water seeping in from the earth's crust. Here is another source tha dictates how this is also impossible for several reasons, involving the temperature of the water, the physical practicality, and counter geologic evidence.

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

Conclusion: My opponent's second "reason" has absolutely no citations, and thus, I cannot judge its accuracy. However, I have provided two sources which show that what my opponent has suggested is incorrect based on scientific fact. Thus, I urge the audience to reject this reason on the basis that it is factually incorrect and a result of assumption and random guesswork.

TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS

Motive: My opponent is suggesting that there has been no observed evolution between "kinds", and that transitional fossils do not exist. My opponent then concludes that because of this, Evolution is making unjust claims.

Logical Fallacies:

1. Semantics

My opponent uses the word "kind", which has no scientific merit whatsoever. There is no legitimate distinction between "kinds" and it is not taxonomically accepted. Furthermore, there has been no indication that something prevents changes from building up over time. My opponent probably knows that microevolution is true, thus, he admits that changes do occur. However, since he has not provided a reason as to why these changes cannot build up, it casts doubt on his assertion that kinds cannot change. Please see the following source, which provides more reasons why this "argument of kinds" is simply untrue:

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

2. Argument from Ignorance
http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

My opponent suggests that because Evolution has a lack of 100% evidence, we must assume it to be incorrect. However, this does not prove that Evolution is false, it only shows a lack of evidence in a certain part of Evolutionary theory (if it were the case that my opponent's assumption was correct anyway, which it is not).

3. False premises

My opponent's argument assumes that what he says is correct. However, there are plenty of transitional fossils discovered.

Here is a list of transitional fossils

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

And an explanation as to why we do not see too many of them:

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

Conclusion: My opponent's assertion that there has been no transitional fossil observed through time is just founded on false facts and antiquated Creationist propaganda.

***

I have thus shown that all three of my opponent's reasons do not meet the resolution. None of my opponent's provided reasons show that Evolution is false and thus, the resolution is effectively negated.

Thank you to the audience and to my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

Thanks for giving your best shot at this argument.

Evolution has given us no reason to think what we sense is legit to reality because of our senses have been through a untrustworthy process:

My first reason, if understood will break down evolution into a million pieces, not saying evolution is false but untrustworthy. You thought I meant we cannot trust our vision or the sound we hear as being perfect, and yes I would agree, if evolution happened we couldn't. However I was getting at a more deeper reason. The reason is not as bland as, "Oh if evolution was more trustworthy, I could know what I see is the way it should look, but everything I still know is legit to reality"

No, that was not what I meant at all. What I meant is that if you believe in evolution instead of creation, you cannot be worthy of knowledge, because you have evolved, despite what society thinks about evolution. Since society only believe that evolution is true because of the knowledge which they have to begin with. God, who you would suspect to know everything is therefore the giver of reality. And we can only know this by creation, given that we were made first hand, as humans, by God. The main point is that knowledge did not come from evolution, in that we evolved since our senses give us knowledge from the universe around us. It is impossible to assume evolution is the bases of knowledge, since as you well know a brainless explosion cannot think, where did the standard of knowledge come from, if evolution cannot produce it? If we cannot trust evolution, how can we know our senses indercate truth through millions of years of random process and production of the brain and therefore our senses. It is illogical to think our senses can pick up knowledge when one believes we have evolved from a single cell organism.

Because evolution is a biological process which consists of time to applaud the vast verity of life there is today. And according to evolution we are apart of the verity of life which exists, evolution does not support knowledgeable intelligence. Intelligence which can split knowledge from belief, evolution gives no leeway for reality, knowledge and absolutely no objective truth. To conclude that evolution has evolved humans to be different from any other creature is quite absurd, evolution does nothing to do anything, but just fights for survival, evolution is selfish. In that sense a person who believes in evolution cannot trust evolution, therefore cannot trust is own senses 100% and in that the real percentage is unknown. Reality therefore is unknown, unless evolution cannot produce anything better than the human, our knowledge of objective truth will increase. So says the evolutionists.

Just to put the issue about not being able to trust our own senses in a simpler perspective, look at it like this. I walk into a room and the T.V is on, there is a black and while 1940's movie on T.V, so I think, I think that because I was not in the room to begin with, but I find out that the black and white 1940's movie is not the actual program, but the actual program is, "The top 100 movies." Reality was that I was watching the top hundred movies, not the black and white movie. And reality is that we cannot trust our senses if you fix evolution as the standard of all knowledgeable things.

Moving on.

Ignoring the first reason, for the sake of a argument I will proceed.

Fossils prove nothing towards evolution, since the flood is also reasonable:

Fossils do not tell us anything but that the animal once lived in the past, no more information can be given. We cannot know that a fossil, when alive had any offspring, but evolutionists assume they do due to the clear assumption of the similar looking animals alive today. In that no evolutionists can decide whether one creature is better than another, based on how deep the fossils are found in the sedimentary rock. According to evolution, creatures, including plant life evolve at their best due to the environment. Therefore there is no saying what creature evolved into what, despite where in the palaeontologist finds the fossil, since the fossil, when it was alive, evolved based around it's environment, and not to mention the environment changes, indition it is circular. Instead of looking for prove in fossils, look for prove in where fossils have been when they were living animals. Many times around the world, have scientists found dinosaur foot prints crossing human foot prints, contradicting evolution. Here is some information:

Taylor Trail: "A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

McFall Trail: "A recently discovered series of 15 human footprints on the Upper Taylor Platform (UTP) in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas."

New Mexico Track: "One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs)."

With there being a godless theory, evolution, evolutionist/atheists dismiss the the idea that God created all creatures to begin with, on day four, five and six of creation. And because of that, people have the intentions to look for the truth about life in a completely different understanding of the universe, in a completely different way. That complete difference being there is no God, which in all understanding, leads people to find truth another way. Firstly one needs to work out why biological, we exist, through that we can follow through to evolution's objective truth. That being the Big Bang. If there was no God, I would also believe in evolution, and the Big Bang, since I would have no other reason not to. I assume the same goes for someone who does no believe in evolution and the Big Bang, with a firm belief that they did not happen, I would image they would believe in God.

As a whole, fossils cannot give any proof for evolution, as much as they could to the flood, if they give evidence to evolution, no evidence can be shown to say the flood really happened. Same goes for evolution, if there is evidence for the flood. Considering that palaeontologists find fossils and do not know 100% that the fossils have always been in that spot where it died. Finding fossils deeper that other fossils does not suggest evolution occurred, since it is not evidence for evolution, but more an assumption towards evolution, a person could also suggest a globe flood caused so many fossils to be at different places in the ground. Since it was globe, the moon would not be in control of the tides but rather there being no tide but just chaos. Tides controlled by the moon, keep the land try, however it took six months to flood the entire earth. You could understand why, as in that same way you could about evolution, why a flood of that scale could cause so much chaos.

No transitional fossils fossils exist:

This is more logic than science to say whether transitional fossils exist, but for evolution to take place over millions of years, there needs to be a change between one kind (cat, bear, whale for examples) to another kind. The change needs to happen, unless there is no change at all. And the change of the kind into another kind, should have a stage were the creature either changes into another kind within it's life time or the mother gives birth to a new kind, different to the mother, they are the only two logical reasons. No one sees one kind giving birth to another new kind. Scientists always know, from their knowledge of previously knowing that they have never witnessed one kind giving birth to a new kind that one kind does not give birth to another kind. Therefore as far as knowledge goes, there are no transitional forms or fossils. But they assume that over vast lengths of time, at some point one kind will change into another. There is no prove, it is all assumed.

I rest my case, for now.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and will now make my counterpoints. My response shall be organized as such:

1. Preliminary notes
2. Recap of Epistemology I and response to Epistemology II
3. Recap of Fossil Evidence Interpretation I and response to Fossil Evidence Interpretation II
4. Recap of Transitional Fossils I and response to Transitional Fossils II
5. Conclusion

PRELIMINARY NOTES:

My opponent's response is lacking in many aspects.

1. My opponent has not responded to the various logical fallacies I have pointed out, nor has he commented on any of the sources that I provided, nor has he commented on the scientific data I have shown to completely contradict what he says.

2. My opponent's last round simply clarified all of his arguments in his opening, without taking into account any of my rebuttals. I will point out that it is not my fault that my opponent decided to waste an entire round by ignoring most if not all of my points, and as this is a three round debate, I reserve the right to make new arguments in the third round if my opponent decides to delay his responses all to the next round.

3. My opponent is trying to move the goalposts. He has stated that the three reasons he provided in the opening are each individually, reasons that Evolution is false. My opponent has conceded the debate with this sentence:

"My first reason, if understood will break down evolution into a million pieces, not saying evolution is false but untrustworthy."

To say something is false is completely different from saying that something is untrustworthy.

RECAP OF EPISTEMOLOGY I AND RESPONSE TO EPISTEMOLOGY II

Recap and Motive: My opponent's argument as it stands was about trusting our senses: "how can we trust our eyes, nose, ears, touch and taste?" I have offered the explanation that our senses are fallible. My opponent has responded by changing his argument to say that if we evolved from lower life forms, our knowledge and thus, our theory of evolution itself would be flawed. His alternate explanation is that Intelligence is somehow divine.

Logical Fallacies:

All the same as the last one, because my opponent's "new" response is just a repackaged version of his older one. The overarching theme is epistemology, whether or not a flawed brain can come up with a "trustworthy" theory, be it existence or evolution itself. In Epistemology I, it was sensory perception. In Epistemology II, it is Evolution itself. My opponent switched arguments but luckily, my response was broad enough to cover both. All my sources and the logical fallacies apply to both of my opponent's Epistemological arguments. Nothing is known with absolute certainty and nothing needs to be known with absolute certainty.

One additional point needs to be made: The fact that we evolved from single celled organisms does not show that we are "unworthy of knowledge" as my opponent stated.

Logical Fallacy:
Begging the Question
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent assumes that knowledge must be separate from matter, thus logically reducing to the presence of a supernatural, when the discussion is about the validity of a purely naturalistic theory.

RECAP OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION I AND RESPONSE TO FOSSIL EVIDENCE INTERPRETATION II

Recap and Motive: My opponent's argument has become broader. He asserts that we cannot make claims on certain things because they are not direct fact, visible in obtained evidence. In addition, he asserts that scientists seek to disprove God as a preliminary goal, and that Evolutionists should ask "why" we exist instead of "how" to begin with. He then brings up global flooding again as an alternate. He also provides "evidence" showing that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Logical Fallacies:

1. Flawed Premise
All knowledge comes from interpretation of data, not data itself. The question is the extent of interpretation. This source completely addresses my opponent's point about the connection between fossils (evidence) and the things we infer from it (interpretation).

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

See also this source about bias and prejudice.

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

2. Flawed Premise
Scientists do not seek to disprove God, nor will they, nor have they ever. This source explains things very well:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

3. Begging the Question
My opponent suggests that we ask "Why?" Instead of "How?" Asking "why?" assumes that there is inherent meaning and purpose, which reduces down to the assumption that a God exists. The argument is circular and tautological and I urge the audience to reject it.

4. Argumentum ad Nauseum
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent repeats his argument about Global flood when my response as well as my source show that mounds of data are against his unfounded, uncited, and fantastical assumption.

5. Flawed Premise
My opponent's three pieces of evidence are all proven to be flawed, debunked, and widely rejected by people, Creationist or not. Here are three articles covering why they are all lies and misinterpretations.

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

RECAP OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS I AND RESPONSE TO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS II

Recap and Motive: My opponent suggests that although he does not have any scientific reason to doubt the existence of transitional forms, he bases his conclusion on the fact that kinds cannot switch. He bases this assumption on the fact that no observed instance of this has happened.

Logical Fallacies:

The exact same as in Round 1. My opponent's argument is basically a response having not read any of my rebuttal. In my last round rebuttal, I have shown via extensively providing sources and logical arguments that my opponent's argument fails in many regards.

1. Semantics I

First, my opponent did not comment on my rebuttal on the use of "kind". This is a designation that has absolutely no scientific basis. Assuming that a "kind" is some arbitrary grouping based on physical appearance, there may be many "kinds" in between two other "kinds" that have gone extinct after evolution took place. This is a very common occurrence as intermediates become out-competed by their descendant and ancestor species.

2. Semantics II

Transitional fossils, as I have cited in that rather large list, exist. My opponent's argument was against going from "kind" to "kind". As I am citing scientific sources and using scientific terminology, my opponent should not expect my sources to detail and include such things as his imaginary classification of "kind". Thus, he cannot say that "transitional fossils cannot exist", I have given him a giant list. Playing with words cannot change fact.

3. Argument from Ignorance

My opponent argues that because we have never seen the change from one kind to another, we cannot assume that it does. However, there is also no reason to assume that it cannot. If I can walk 10 meters, I should be able to walk across 20 meters, 30 meters, 300 meters, or 3 kilometers, unless there are obstacles like a door, wall, moat, or exhaustion, or SOMETHING that would limit the progression. Microevolution was seen, and now, macroevolution has been too. My opponent's argument would only be valid if he gave a reason why an obstacle exists for going from one kind to another, and Argument from Ignorance does not cut it.

CONCLUSION

My opponent has ignored almost all of my rebuttals in favor of making excessively wordy and uncontributive posts. I find this to be insulting as I pay attention to everything he says. So far, I have shown that his arguments fail completely and that the resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response, and hope he will address my arguments next round.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

Note: Kleptin please try to make your lay out a little clearer. I know you understand the lay out, but I do not. Thanks.
(No excuse to vote for me, please do not vote for that reason alone).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok this is the last round and I will try to answer every question Kleptin has posed. Kleptin has said my first reason is a bad fallacy, I disagree. My argument ends in a good conclusion, while the understanding is easily understood, I pardon Kleptin for his misunderstanding. I will now provide logic to suggest why Con is incorrect logically. Firstly his reasoning to suggest why reason one is incorrect logically is not correct to what I was meaning. I will explain.

In round one this is Kleptin's response, " Evolution does not imply that out senses are inaccurate." -- I am not arguing degrees of accuracy in vision or degrees of accuracy in hearing or any other sense which people suggest evolution has created. I am discussing the whole spectrum of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch being a possible delusion. It is very simple to grasp, since evolution and this concludes a type circular reasoning. Since you are your self and no one else, you cannot bring forth technology to prove this wrong, you cannot jump in another body and say, "Look I am not delusional, this person sees, hears, smells, tastes and touches like I do." You are your self and nothing more.

Your brain takes in all the information which creates your own universe, since there is no God according to atheists and evolutionists (I will get to people who believe in God and evolution in a moment) they are the universe and with out them there is nothing, as I just said, "Your brain takes in all the information which creates your own universe..." Making that person in some respect the God of the universe. As without anyone there is nothing. No after life to a atheist, no God to suggest the supernatural, but just the past which is known, considering evolution and the Big Bang which created the universe, only because you are alive to know about evolution and the Big Bang do they exist. I am talking about an individual, not a universal point of view, since one person is not everyone. So to now pose my main reason one. If you (remember you are not everyone) have evolved, how can you trust your own senses over millions of years of evolution?

Now you may say, "Well I do not know about evolution when I was born, I learnt about it at school." That is right, and a newspaper I read a while back spoke of children naturally believing in God. The journalists interviewed a number of young children, they asked, "What are birds for?" Almost all of them replied, "To make nice sounds." As a 5/6 year old you tend to see the world in a much simpler form, without the 'corrupt' knowledge of evolution leading children astray from the simpler view of the world, the understanding that evolution creates is brought in through a child being mistaken later on when they reach secondary school, if earlier. And because of their younger years, were they thought birds were there to make nice sounds remains while having the extra knowledge of that they evolved.

However you trusted your senses as a child, because you were brought up and raised to use the world around you with them, and your senses are all you had. The trust of your senses comes from your life's experiences, not from evolution. Unless you can trust everyone on earth with your life, then you can say evolution is trustworthy, as evolution created everyone as they are today ultimately, so they say.

In that you cannot trust your senses if your believe in evolution, but you also trust your life with your senses. But you are a product of evolution, and therefore, there is no way of saying if your senses are ultimately trusting to reality. You grew up knowing this is reality, life as it is. But because evolution has invited your life, you see evolution as the scientists show it to you. And its the same with the scientists, they grew up like you did. It all could be incorrect to the very last bone?

Fossils prove nothing towards evolution:

I provided proof that man and dinosaur lived together, if dinosaur and man lived side by side, it would destroy the fossils record pointing towards evolution and more towards the flood.

An amazing find which was blood of a T-rex which was thought to have died out 65 million years ago. The blood (which should have completely decayed) report showed that this T-rex has its hemogoblin still intact, hemogoblin decay and break down within short time and could not last near millions years. Not only the blood was found but soft fibrous tissue and complete blood vessels. Even with this proof, evolutionists ignore it and continue to rely on the fossil record to show evidence of evolution. This evidence of the T-rex screams at them!

Trilobite tracks have been preserved in stone. Evolutionists suggest that mud over millions of years turns to stone, it seems much more logical to suggest that a globe flood drowned the critta. Since how did the tracks escape being 'removed' or 'erased' if rock takes million of years to form? It truly indicates a flood.

There are fossils that are found giving birth, 'fighting', eating? If it takes millions of years to fossilize, why do creature cease to resume actions?

Younger fossils are found underneath older fossils. So the Geological Strata chart is either a lie, or the people who drawn it are arrogant. When scientists are confronted they say they do not know why this is, but say it could not have been a globe flood, as quoted, " We don't know yet, but we KNOW it WASN'T the result of a catastrophic global flood!"

Missing link/transitional fossils:

I want to say that the word kind simply means a type of creature, I have even given examples so there is no no excuse. Them being, cat, bear, whales, seal kinds for example.

Ok, the missing link is still missing. It seems like Con has thought the last round was his last. Con goes on to state that if he walks 10 meters he can walk 20 and if 20 meters, 30 meters. This is a old argument, the thing is that if macro evolution was to take place, he would have to do something other than walk, fly perhaps? No matter how far he walks he still is walking. A missing link would be where there is one kind of animal which is no evolved fully and another animal which has evolved but evolving into the new current animal. A cat is a cat, a cheetah for example is no less of a cat that a house cat is. I am aware of that the animal evolves according to its surroundings, but I assure you, place a house cat in the African land scape for 10 million years and its ancestors will still be cats, despite the change of the environment. There are snow lepods, cats which live among California's red wood trees, the world smallest breed of cat. Lions, panthers, tigers, cheetahs, ligers, jaguar, leopard and even a sabar-tooth cat. They are no catish that the other, there is no living evidence or fossil evidence that any of these cats are changing into anything else than the cat family. It is a belief when one thinks that micro evolution is macro evolution over time, it is not science but a faith.

The dots are connected in the mind, and not in the fossil record. There is no indication that provides one creature being related to another kind/family. The Archaeopteryx is no missing link between bird and dinosaur, in a recent discovery, a chicken called Talpid was found with a set of crocodile-like chompers. No way set-a-siding that the Archaeopteryx is at all a missing link, since it too had teeth. Because this chicken had a set of crocodile like teeth, this means that if these birds evolved from dinosaurs 300 million years ago, there would be no such thing as a chick with teeth today.

Goes to show.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response but I would like to point out that he broke his promise. Again, he has devoted the majority of his argument to deliberately mislead the audience and repeat arguments that I have already debunked. My opponent has also decided to comment on the layout of my argument, claiming that it is unclear. Thankfully, it is not my job to continuously reduce the level of my response to suit my opponent's ever decreasing bar. Since I am certain that the audience understands my layout and that it is clear enough, I shall thank my opponent for his advice but opt not to change my style.

The layout of my final response shall be as such:

1. Final comment on "Epistemology"
2. Final comment on "Fossil Interpretation"
3. Final comment on "Transitional Fossils"
4. Darwin's History from Round 1
5. Conclusion

EPISTEMOLOGY

My opponent has said many things on this topic. Mostly, he has been rehashing his argument over and over again, with practically no changes. By rehashing his argument in mild amounts and accusing me of misunderstanding it when I clearly did not, he avoided responding to each and every single one of the fallacies I pointed out.

Here they are in order:

Fallacies:

R1. Non Sequitor-Our senses need not direct us to ultimate 100% unquestionable certainty
Flawed Premise- The fact that we cannot trust our existence/senses is irrelevant because even if we decide to accept God as validation that our senses are perfect, that does not erase the fact that people still do suffer from imperfect senses.

R2. Begging the Question-My opponent says that humans would not deserve knowledge if they evolved from lower life forms. However, this runs under the assumption that knowledge is not a natural thing, but a supernatural thing. Assuming the supernatural is begging the question.

R3. Flawed Premise I- My opponent says that we cannot trust our senses because we are individuals who have evolved, and that since we are individuals, we cannot rely on technology to validate our experiences. However, evolution deals with the species, not the individual, thus, this argument fails.

Flawed Premise II- The above argument also has a premise that is unsubstantiated. There is technology that we can discover as individuals, thus, my opponent's restriction fails as well.

Red Herring- My opponent brings up children thinking simple thoughts when this does not apply to his resolution. This has nothing to do with God or Evolution.

INTERPRETATION OF FOSSIL EVIDENCE

My opponent has also rehashed this argument several times. First, he says that fossils are useless because they do not provide exact information, only interpretable information. Second, he says that it is fallible because fossils have proven that dinosaurs and man have coexisted. In this round, he starts off stating that his proof stands, while completely ignoring the sources I cited showing that his dino-claims are completely false. He then cites that T-Rex blood shows that dinosaurs existed up until recently, and that tracks near trilobites fossils show a young human history.

This section is more based on lies than actual logical fallacies. I will list them here.

1. Evolutionists struggle with fossil evidence- FALSE. There is no controversy or struggle, because science corrects itself.
2. Fossils represent just the individual organism- FALSE. Finding multiple fossils structured the same way and with small differences in strata of several hundred thousand years time shows that a fossil represents the species, not the individual alone.
3. The Taylor, McFall, and New Mexico trail show humans existed with Dinosaurs- FALSE, I have provided many sources debunking these.
4. The geologic column provides evidence for a global flood- FALSE, I provide many examples and a source detailing all the ways that it shows a geologic flood to be IMPOSSIBLE. My opponent only provided assumptions with no source or citation.
5. T-Rex blood has been found, showing that dinosaurs were not extinct that long ago-FALSE, this is the source my opponent did not cite, but has forced me to research on my own:

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

The hemoglobin was not intact, neither was soft tissue nor complete blood vessels. This is a complete and total lie, the bone was fossilized with remnants of what could have been hemoglobin fragments and an insignificant portion of organic material. The researcher himself said that all of the discoveries were tentative and should not be taken too seriously. The bone was also dated back to regular T-Rex age by amino racemization, a complex nonradiometric technique:

http://pubs.acs.org...

6. Trilobite tracks were found preserved in stone. This is again completely FALSE. Here is the source I needed to find myself

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

The tracks are nothing artificial, and were produced by natural processes. In addition, if it were a global flood causing this fossilization, the tracks would have been washed away by the flood.

7. There are fossils of creatures giving birth, fighting, and eating, thus, the flood must be responsible- FALSE. Things are dead before they are fossilized I don't recall any evidence of what my opponent describes. However, we know that his explanation is wrong because if the flood were the cause instead, all fossils would be of things DROWNING, not giving birth, eating, or fighting.

8. Fossils are misplaced, so the geological strata must be a lie- FALSE, things will shift due to natural occurrences. There are only around 200 fossils that are "misplaced" out of 250 MILLION fossils found and dated correctly, and of those 200 fossils, most of them are explained.

TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS:

My opponent refuses to clarify on a scientific definition of "kind", basically because there is none. A species is scientifically defined and evolutionarily relevant because with nearly no exceptions, life cannot produce fertile offspring outside their species. The designation of "kind" has absolutely no scientific or objective impact, thus, it has no barrier.

My opponent's analogy of walking vs flying is a bad analogy because we can tell the difference between walking and flying. What limits microevolution from turning into macroevolution? Absolutely nothing that my opponent has stated.

His final piece of evidence, that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional species, is useless because I never argued that it was. My source also did not cite it as a transitional fossil.

DARWIN'S HISTORY

Logical Fallacies:
1. Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org...

My opponent's argument is an attack on Darwin's personality and history, not an attack on Darwin's scientific contributions.

2. False analogy
http://www.onegoodmove.org...

My opponent's parallels between Adam and Darwin are similar but not exact. Any logical conclusion to be drawn between them is logically invalid.

3. Flawed Premises and Biased presentation

Darwin's father ultimately gave permission after he was convinced by his brother-in-law Josiah Wedgewood.

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

Darwin never concluded that there was no God, so my opponent's claim of Atheism is a lie. In addition, the death of Anne Darwin had no relevance. This source indicates that Darwin blamed natural selection more than God because he was concerned about inbreeding as he married his cousin.

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

***
And thus, my opponent has absolutely nothing left. Not even his introductory Darwin history. There is not a single point I have not completely debunked and provided evidence for, even though my opponent has decided to ignore over 75% of my sources. Since my opponent has not met his burden and I have made my point clear, I urge a CON vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I can't trust my senses. You're right, no technology, no other people. Let's just say that you're right and that I can't trust my senses.

Let's say that I think that I am in a park. Is there a way for me to know 100% that I am in a park if evolution is true? No. Does this mean that nothing exists? No, that is the wrong conclusion. My senses are flawed, but they work in a way that lets me act and do things. That's enough. The universe doesn't vanish just because I can't know objective truth. If evolution is true and we evolved flawed senses, we wouldn't be able to KNOW objective truth. This does not mean that objective truth is not out there.

Listen, GodSands, I'm tired of this. You're completely and totally wrong. I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, unlike many other people who don't. I have heard all of this before, in a much more succinct and better written form, from different people. I am not an impatient person, I'm going to wait until you start school, then your Philosophy professor can explain to you why you're wrong and that way, you won't keep bother me or any of the rest of us, trying to convince us that you're right about something that is wrong.

I suggest that you work on a different argument, because this one is garbage and I am telling you, if you present this to your professor on the first day of class, it will not be a good first impression, and he WILL tell you that you don't make sense. Done, period, end of discussion.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
No I am connecting to the same thing. You evolved, it does not matter about anyone else. If you believe in evolution then how can YOU not anyone else, trust in your senses? You cannot allow anything which will damn you to be pointed at you. Just like with Adam and Eve in the gardan.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Wrong. You're equivocating.

This philosophical viewpoint only shows that we cannot KNOW absolute truth, it does not show that absolute truth does not exist.

For example, an atheist may argue that because we cannot see God, God does not exist. You as a Christian know that this is untrue because just because we do not experience God, it does not mean that God does not exist.

If we evolved, and have imperfect senses, we can depend on them for day-to-day life. We just can't depend on them to tell us the absolute 100% truth. However, this does not mean that absolute truth does not exist. It just means that we can't experience it. You are connecting two completely different things here, GodSands. I hope you understant.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
"Who says that there must be an objective standard for anything in the universe?" Because nothing could exist. That is why. Without truth nothing would exist, not even God.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
@Godsands

Because what you are talking about is a very basic philosophical concept, and one that is irrelevant to your argument if you learned more about it. To answer your question, it does not matter that there is no standard. You are saying that with evolution, there is no standard, and with God, there is a standard.

There doesn't have to be a standard. The two topics are completely irrelevant. Who says that there must be an objective standard for anything in the universe? Be it truth or epistemology, or morality?

I completely understand what you are saying. Even with technology, what we know or believe to be a certain thing, may not be the same to other people, but this does not matter. Even if truth is completely subjective, it still needs to agree to our own individual scale.

For example, you are saying that with evolution, everyone has a different sized ruler. How then, can we know the true length of something if this is the case? We don't have to. If I take my ruler and see that something is 2 kleptins long, and something else is 3 kleptins long, I can conclude that one thing is not the same as the other thing.

We understand the universe based on our own individual methods of understanding, regardless of actual truth. This argument that you keep on bringing up is an old concept, one that virtually every philosophy student knows about, yet you keep on bringing it up as if though you found the one true answer to everything.

Here's a secret: It's not an original concept, nor is it a proper argument for God. It's not that we don;t understand you, it's that you don't understand yourself.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
If we evolved then, I say one colour is blue but the colour is a different colour to what I see, to what you see blue as. We both call it blue, but really its a different colour to the both of us, and everyone one else who is not us.

Because evolution does not give a standard, this may be true. But Because I believe in the six day creation, God is the standard for all things. Technonlgy makes no difference, you see, I see through my eyes at technonlogy, I do not see how you cannot get passed this easy piece of understanding?
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Because the whole piece is made of stuff that is equally ridiculous. I want you to know, GodSands, that you aren't being singled out because people hate God. It's because your arguments are logically incorrect. Keep that difference in mind.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Why not read the whole piece and not just a snippit?
Posted by unlikely 7 years ago
unlikely
Just bonkers...This argument about evolution by godsands is meaningless
the problem with defending ridiculous sky god fairy claims is they are inherently irrational and dont stand up to scrutiny.
"How do i know im in a park?"....Got nothing to do with the argument of evolution mate..thats a philosophical question
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Thanks for the vote, but don't pity me, I was expecting it in a way, like Jesus I am no longer apart of this world, I am passing through it.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Eros 7 years ago
Eros
GodSandsKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
GodSandsKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by CrusaderDebater 7 years ago
CrusaderDebater
GodSandsKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
GodSandsKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by NDWolfwood5268 7 years ago
NDWolfwood5268
GodSandsKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by surfride 7 years ago
surfride
GodSandsKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
GodSandsKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
GodSandsKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
GodSandsKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
GodSandsKleptinTied
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