The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Winning
61 Points
The Contender
mattyasano.1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 13 votes the winner is...
Anti-atheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,581 times Debate No: 28241
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (13)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance
mattyasano.1

Con

i accept this debate and i wish luck to my opponent
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

Thanks.

1.Glue
The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution.

2. Law of large numbers.

The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this

3. Flagellum

" The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2]

4. Mates

All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts.

5. Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction.

[1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006).
[2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
mattyasano.1

Con

There is no way evolution can be false. there are tons of ways its true. for example there are humans and animals. were all different so evolution isnt false. look at darwins finches proves evoluton is true

Good luck
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

" for example there are humans and animals. were all different so evolution isnt false."

Well we're not all that different. Humans lack genetic diversity, which proves evolution and old earth false. As we should be very diverse genetically[1]. 55 chimpanzees have more genetic diversity than the entire human race. This doesn't support the claim that evolution is true, it rejects it.

" look at darwins finches proves evoluton is true"

Darwin"s finches prove finches come from finches. The finches may have different beaks, but they're still finches. This proves micro-evolution not macro-evolution.

[1] http://www.godandscience.org...
mattyasano.1

Con

Excuse me sir evolution does exist wanna know why? we came from the apes you know those furry gorillas. and we transformed literally from apes to caveman and gradually on to humans. There are fossils proving that evolution did exist and even though we came from apes what about tigers and lions there different. even though were mammals how about cold blooded creatures such as snakes and lizards.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

You're trolling.

Fossils don't prove anything. It's a bone in the ground and that's all. It needs a mind to interpret what the fossil is, it depends if you interpret it with an evoloutionary POV or creationist POV. All human fossils will fit on a billiard table and all are quite human or ape.

We've found a modern human fossil in the Cretaceous period, however humans weren't suppose to he around.[1]

We actually have over 200 fossils that are out of place and contradict evolution. [2]

Moreover Dr.Carl Werner found many modern animals in dinosaur layers.[3]

" I asked Carl just how many modern types of animals he had found in the dinosaur rock layers.

"We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).

"The vertebrates"animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals"show this same pattern."
" "Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc. When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information during our TV interviews it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera."

So the fossil argument fails

[1]http://www.bible.ca...
[2]http://www.nwcreation.net...
[3]http://creation.com...
mattyasano.1

Con

Well my last shot proving evolution exists. You see my grandfather named hoo woo chang lived in the evolution time period. he was a famous philosopher. He was ape at the time as well and married a girl named sally. In his journal he wrote two things about the time period. 1. the poop back then smelled like roses and violets and 2. that evolution exists. Now my friend are you going to believe scientists or a person who lived during that time :)

Vote for con!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jayteescout 3 years ago
jayteescout
Con is an immature troll. While pro was presenting himself very professionally, con didn't really present any evidence at all, nor did he bother to capitalize the start of his sentences. And ending the final round with "Vote for con!!!!!!!!!!", he is absolutely pathetic.
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
IGNORANCE? IGNORANCE????? That's what you are!
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Glue??? GLUE??? THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT???

omg.

You make me cry.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite Pro's admittedly spurious, dubious arguments, Con refused to mount a serious rebuttal that easily demonstrated his lack of dedication and effort expended to the completion of this debate......(Update: casting a proxy point for better organization of debate case)
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 3 years ago
emospongebob527
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: A blowout.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate can hardly be said to contain any real arguments nor valid sources. Con gets 1 simply because he had the advantage of being in agreement with me although failed on all argumentative fronts, completely.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were not convincing at all. Con barely provided an argument.
Vote Placed by Wishing4Winter 3 years ago
Wishing4Winter
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled this debate.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to pro because con did not use strong arguments, sources to pro for using sources.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 3 years ago
Bodhivaka
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This may look like a vote bomb, but it accurately reflects the nature of this debate. Con was an obvious troll who failed to address any of Pro's arguments, so obviously he loses conduct; his punctuation was also terrible, and he therefore loses S&G points, as well. Although Pro's arguments are easily refuted by anyone with a proper understanding of evolution, his arguments were obviously more impressive than that of Con's, and so he gets points for more convincing arguments; he was also the only one to use any sources at all, and he therefore gets source points, as well. Ultimately, a terrible debate between a misinformed creationist and an immature troll.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 3 years ago
TigerTime
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Trolling + dropped arguments
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not take the debate seriously, Full points to Pro.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
Anti-atheistmattyasano.1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments went unrefuted. GLUE?!?!?!