The Instigator
Dale.G
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
DeusMortisEst
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Evolution is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
DeusMortisEst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,979 times Debate No: 29377
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

Dale.G

Pro

the reason why I say Evolution is false is because Evolution say's a fish can turn into a monkey but a fish dose not have the voice of a monkey and Evolution says a monkey can turn into a fish but why don't we see sea monkeys under water evolution says a rock Turned into a Fish witch has sex with a Monkey in a Mud Pool that was struck by lighting and then the fish grew legs and walked and gave birth to a Human so the big question is what was the fish shoe size before it grew feet lol ahhahahahahah Evolution is false checkmate
DeusMortisEst

Con

"evolution say's a fish can turn into a monkey"

"Evolution says a monkey can turn into a fish"

"evolution says a rock Turned into a Fish witch has sex with a Monkey in a Mud Pool that was struck by lighting and then the fish grew legs and walked and gave birth to a Human"

Can you please provide the sources for this? I am not aware of any research into evolutionary biology which has suggested any of these things.

---

"Evolution is false is because Evolution say's a fish can turn into a monkey but a fish dose not have the voice of a monkey"

This is a highly flawed statement, but I am going to go on the assumption that the two examples of species (monkey and fish) were in fact intended to be so far removed from one another so as to present the ridiculousness you percieve in evolution.
I shall, however, adapt your argument slightly just to make it slightly more coherent and slightly less flawed.

First, I will replace 'monkey' and 'fish' to 'Species A' and 'Species B'
So, now the argument is: "Evolution is false is because Evolution say's Species A can turn into Species B but Species A dose not have the voice of Species B"

Second, I will replace 'dose not have the voice of' with 'does not have all the same traits as'
So, now the argument is: "Evolution is false is because Evolution say's Species A can turn into Species B but Species A does not have all the same traits as Species B"

Third, I will replace 'Evolution say's' with 'according to the theory of evolution'
So, now the argument is: "Evolution is false is because according to the theory of evolution Species A can turn into Species B but Species A does not have all the same traits as Species B"

Fourth, I will move 'Evolution is false' to the end of the argument, and make it 'therefore evolution is false'.
So, now the argument is: "is because according to the theory of evolution Species A can turn into Species B but Species A does not have all the same traits as Species B therefore evolution is false "

Fifth, I will remove extraneous words and add in some punctuation.
So, now the argument is: "According to the theory of evolution, Species A can turn into Species B. However Species A does not have all the same traits as Species B. Therefore evolution is false "

Sixth, since all the evidence points towards macro and micro evolution as the reason for diversity, I will replace 'However Species A does not have all the same traits as Species B.' with 'However evolution occurs.'
So, now the argument is: "According to the theory of evolution, Species A can turn into Species B. However evolution occurs. Therefore evolution is false "

Seventh, since 'According to the theory of evolution, Species A can turn into Species B.' is pretty much a basic (if unsatisfactorily simplified) definition of the theory of biological evolution, I will remove it (as it is assumed that the two of us have a rudimentary understanding of the concept we are defending/rejecting).
So, now the argument is: "However evolution occurs. Therefore evolution is false."

Eighth, I will remove the 'however' at the start, as it is extraneous at this point.

What we are left with is a simplified, more coherent, and less specific version of your argument.

This is basically what you are saying: Evolution occurs. Therefore evolution is false.

---

By the way, sea monkeys exist: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Your move...
Debate Round No. 1
Dale.G

Pro

Evolution is false please watch this video
DeusMortisEst

Con

This argument, despite what Chuck Missler seems to think, has nothing to do with evolution, but rather abiogenesis. The two are completely different. I get the distinct feeling you have no idea what you're actually talking about.

Despite this having absolutely no bearing on our debate, I will still refute it, because the 'Peanut Butter Argument' is so painfully easy to refute.

The 'Peanut Butter Argument' (which I will hereafter refer to as PBA) is based on the idea that a jar of peanut butter contains the same conditions as primordial Earth, which is simply not true. As the RationalWiki article on the PBA puts it: "sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, multimillion-year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays"
Another mistake made in the PBA is the assumption that even if life WERE to arise, it would be a fully formed, highly evolved creature, rather than the simple single celled organisms that would ACTUALLY arise through abiogenesis.
The main reason that the spontaneous appearance of life in a peanut butter jar is unlikely (not impossible, as Chuck Missler claims) isn't that spontaneous appearance of life is unlikely, but rather that they put preservatives in commercial peanut butter to keep mould/bacteria from developing. In many ways, the reason life probably won't appear in a peanut butter jar is because the companies that make the peanut butter have made sure it probably won't.

I suggest you actually address evolution in your next argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Dale.G

Pro

Dale.G forfeited this round.
DeusMortisEst

Con

My opponent is no longer a member on debate.org... He decided to leave because the site owner wouldn't strike his 100% loss rate from the record.
Debate Round No. 3
Dale.G

Pro

Dale.G forfeited this round.
DeusMortisEst

Con

I see that my opponent's account is back online. I have messaged him asking if he wishes to continue this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Dale.G

Pro

Dale.G forfeited this round.
DeusMortisEst

Con

This debate was a farce. My opponent left the site halfway through after quite an amusing disagreement with the site owner over whether or not his 0% win rate was fair or not.
He then returned, and his profile showed he was online within the past 36 hours. I challenged him to continue the debate but he refused by remaining silent. His profile has now been closed again (I assume permanently this time).

My opponent posted two arguments, the first was a ridiculous and incomprehensible ramble which I felt I shot down adequately, and the second was little more than the presentation of Chuck Missler's 'Peanut Butter Argument' which has been debunked numrous times since it was established.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
I wonder if Dale set the voting to 180 days so that he could delay having to claim a loss or perhaps even work in some last-minute shill votes to take an illegitimate win.
Posted by rowsdower 1 year ago
rowsdower
Dale deactivated his account because the operator for debate.org was ignoring several of Dale's request.
1 He wouldn't strike dale's losses from the record
2 He wouldn't block all the people who had voted against dale from voting on Dale's future debates
3 He told Dale that he reports people to much
4 He told dale that his reports are confusing
5 He told Dale that he had looked over some of his debates and the votes didn't seem to be unfair.
6 He told Dale that several people had reported Dale for plagiarism.
At this point Dale told the site operator that he was leaving because the site operator was involved in the atheist conspiracy against him and he expected the debates he did to be deleted because he was leaving the site.
Posted by SpectreEelman 1 year ago
SpectreEelman
thank you Dale soo very much..
for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Religion is Neurological Disorder.
You ramble off the most Asinine stuff I have ever heard or read.
You need to go seek Professional Psychological Help, right now - do not wait.

You should just Shut up and go away...
Posted by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
Dammit Dale that's not even the subject of this debate.
Posted by Dale.G 1 year ago
Dale.G
The Reason Why A Atheist do not have proof and evidence of Atheism being accurate and correct is because there are people who believe in God woo woo woo woo Checkmate to the Atheist yea
Posted by rowsdower 1 year ago
rowsdower
Derkcloud...you sir just won the internets for the day!
Posted by derkcloud 1 year ago
derkcloud
"I think Dale.G might take this one." said no voter ever.
Posted by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
@ishallannoyyo: who knows what goes on in such a twisted, senseless mind as his. He could be talking about chocolate ice cream for all I know.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 1 year ago
ishallannoyyo
when dale speaks of evolution, is he talking about the same evolution the rest of us are talking about???
Posted by alyson27 1 year ago
alyson27
What dafuq did I just read.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 1 year ago
KingDebater
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because of Pro's forfeit, spelling and grammar to Con because of Pro's lack of punctuation, arguments to Con because he actually made some good ones, sources to Pro because of his round 2.
Vote Placed by BornOKTheFirstTime 1 year ago
BornOKTheFirstTime
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
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: It was close ....
Vote Placed by LatentDebater 1 year ago
LatentDebater
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
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: Annihilation.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 1 year ago
Deadlykris
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
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: Pro took his ball and went home.
Vote Placed by JasonGlenn 1 year ago
JasonGlenn
Dale.GDeusMortisEstTied
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: Con took this debate on all accounts.