The Instigator
Mike-the-wise-guy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SkepticalDebatee
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Evolution is not a Scientific view, and is a fairytale for adults.

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...
SkepticalDebatee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 56773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

I will take the BOP even though there really isn't one. My goal: To show how farfetched evolution is, and that there is countless proof against it.
1. Receding Moon:
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth"s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth"s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon." 1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth"s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.1, 2 The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3 however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year "long" ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4

Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery " unless it was designed that way from the beginning.

2. Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.

3. The Sun:
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. If the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is seems to be what the evidence points to.

See also: The Young Faint Sun Paradox, Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, and Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers

4. The Oldest Living Thing:
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they die. It also strongly suggests that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis.

See also Evidence from Living Things

5. Helium in the Atmosphere:
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.

If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. 16,17 Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years. 18

See also: Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

6. Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19 With each revolution they lose 1/2 of 1 percent of their mass. Thus, after several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.20 Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added.

Evolutionists have come up with theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added. One is called the Oort Cloud theory, named after J. Oort. This suggests that a hypothetical cloud surrounds the solar system that is said to extend past the orbit of Pluto.21 The other theory is called the Kuiper belt theory, and it is directed at short period comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period ones. Although some people claim that the Kuiper belt has been discovered, to this author's knowledge that is not the case. Nor has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of comet material) been observed to transform into a would-be comet.

The existence of short period comets suggests that our solar system is less than 10,000 years old: otherwise they would have burned out long ago. 22

More evidence of a young Universe is given in reference 21 below. See also the Astronomy section of the Young Age of Earth and Universe Q&A page on the www.answersingenesis.org web site.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5% every 100 years. This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong. Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. 23,24,25,26 In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young." - http://www.earthage.org...

The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented. This was brought out by a recent NOVA Special. In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now. And although, the NOVA special strongly suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, such may not be the case, as Dr. Humphreys work suggests. A brief portion of Dr. Humphreys findings are quoted below.
http://www.earthage.org...

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
- Charles Darwin

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ". I will lay it on the line " there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
- Evolutionist Dr. Colin

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."
- Richard Dawkins

"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth"s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin"s hypothetical intermediate variants " instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
- Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist
http://thetruthwins.com...
SkepticalDebatee

Con

The resolution has a severe problem from the get go. Evolution is neither a tale nor does it have anything to do with fairies.

Semantics aside let's get to the heart of the debate. Is evolution a scientific view? Yes.

There is an overwhelming support among scientists, especially those in relevant fields for the theology of evolution. (1)
There is, of course, good reason for this support. Here is a one stop site for 29 different types of evolutionary evidence. (2)

I'm not quite sure where the controversy is here.

1. http://ncse.com...
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

I took the BOP therefore it is your job to debunk my arguments, and then present new ones. You did not debunk my arguments, plus your new arguments are not well structured. 1. The majority of scientists are not always correct. (examples: Doctors used to believe that leches suck the bad blood out of people, and therefore they ended up killing people. Also, the majority of scientists used to believe in the heliocentric theory instead of the geocentric theory. see http://www.universetoday.com... . Many of these cases exists through time)
2. This website is all crap. If you look through the "arguments" they all all flawed by fallacies, and every example can be defined as a animal we know of today. One example is the human evolution skulls. They all are people. Haven't you ever seen someone with a different shaped head than you? It does not mean they are behind in evolution, it is just the way they are born.

MORE EVIDENCE OF CREATION:
explain this: http://youngearth.com...

11. Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. 73, 74, 75 Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth (i.e. millions or billions of years old) scenarios. See also reference 20 below, and associated Links.

12. The Dead Sea:
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old. 76,77 For more on this subject, Click Here and scroll down.

13. Niagara Falls:
Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about 4-5 feet per year. Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.78,79,80 For more details see Ian Juby's article on this topic.

14. Historical Records:
Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that recorded human history goes back 4,600- 5,400 years -- or perhaps even more; but, according to Froelich Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the "earliest actual recorded date in human history." 81,82,83 With regard to the pioneers of the Carbon 14 method of dating and ancient human history, Sylvia Baker reports what they actually said as follows:

"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method. He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly (that) these ... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.'" 84 Emphasis Added

See also How Far Back to the Records Go?

15. The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 0.5 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet; 87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up from the ground.

One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. For more details, see Part Two of this series on Continental Drift.
16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:
Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines.

See also: The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.

17. Population Growth:
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97

See Population Statistics for more details.

18. Minerals in the Oceans:
By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are. When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years old, 98 See also The Sea's Missing Salt, 99 by Dr. Steve Austin.

19. Rapid Mountain Uplift:
In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article. In it he discovered that:

"An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale. In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago. This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several hundred million years."

20. Zircons:
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- if the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 " 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible."
more from http://www.earthage.org...
SkepticalDebatee

Con

My opponent has completely failed. Instead of sticking to the resolution he has spouted a bunch of pseudoscience about the age of the Earth which has nothing to do with the validity of evolution or whether it is a scientific view. Pro has therefore failed his BoP. Evolution has in fact been seen firsthand many times. Here is just one example of evolution. In this case e-coli evolved in the lab. Specifically gaining the ability to use citrate-a trait often used to distinguish bacteria from e-coli. (1)

1. http://www.newscientist.com...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
omg, the discussions in one of the forums made my eyes bleed. The worst thing is that I'm not able to post anything because of some registration validation. I hope I'm not banned for being an atheist lol.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
MIke, stop visiting those websites. Try to study and understand facts before choosing what you believe.
This is important "UNDERSTAND THEM". This debate was really bad.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Mike, when using a source you have copied and pasted, it should be kept to a singular point, in quotes, cited, with your original thought around it.

You have instead copied your ENTIRE agreement from external websites. People come to this site to read debates, where two people exchange and challenge ideas, not to read regurgitated websites.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 2 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com...
http://thetruthwins.com...
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com...
http://evolutionfairytale.com...

I did use these and other sources in previous debates. But I always made sure to cite my sources.
Posted by Mike-the-wise-guy 2 years ago
Mike-the-wise-guy
I have not plagiarized. I have always put http://www.earthage.org... after the argument.
Plus I have used the same stuff in another debate because it can answer both of them. I do understand the following arguments. All the evidence against evolution that I used, can be found at http://www.earthage.org...
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Accustomed to recitation of material without credence to its veracity or authority, one might wager.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
It's not just once either. Mike-the-wise-guy has copied and pasted from that site in other debates as well.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Thanks Samereay^ I neglected to include a link, although I note Pro did cite twice. Citation and plagiarism are NOT the same thing.

Con ought to take Pro to task on this.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
For those that are wondering, Pro's arguments are plagirised directly from http://www.earthage.org...
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
You have plagiarised all of your arguments and even worse, you don't even understand them.

You have regurgitated, verbatim, the contents of an apologist website. It would make sense if any of those arguments were accurate or relevant.

Your arguments have nothing to do with evolution. They're poorly constructed and inaccurate earth-origin contentions, NOT evolution.

Here I was, hoping a creationist had some new interesting ideas about some flaw in the model. What an absolute demonstration of the inability of a creationist to think for themselves.

Not that it matters, but in the title page of your website it claims that there are never any televised debates between creationists and scientists. What a farce, YouTube is saturated with debates with Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and more.

When you finish this debate, feel free to challenge me to a similar one if you like.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
Mike-the-wise-guySkepticalDebateeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides an excellent example for how many arguments can be cut down in one deft statement. Excellently argued.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Mike-the-wise-guySkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't meet his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Mike-the-wise-guySkepticalDebateeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made use of credible scientific sources to show scientific research on evolution. Pro forgot to talk about evolution at all, and resorted to copy-pasting his entire argument from an external website that had no scientific credibility and attempted to show the Earth was young. As such, con wins on sources and arguments, and pro's failure to even attempt to produce his own argument means conduct goes to con as well. Lucky for pro, the website he copied from had proper spelling and grammar, so on this point they tie.
Vote Placed by voxprojectus 2 years ago
voxprojectus
Mike-the-wise-guySkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO addressed no aspect of evolution other than the age of the earth. While I might have liked to see CON spend more time addressing those, they were not particularly persuasive in terms of disproving Natural Selection or anything about biology, so it was hardly neccesary. CON was right to point out that Pro's statements were not supporting his resolution.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
Mike-the-wise-guySkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Even if it wasn't correct, it still is current scientific view. Bad calculations are not good arguments.