The Instigator
Mr
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
acvavra
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Evolution is real and we still are evolving

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,612 times Debate No: 24572
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Mr

Pro

I believe evolution is real and we still are evolving, accept my request and we can debate
acvavra

Con

If we are evolving, why are there still monkeys, fish, amphibians, etc. that we came from supposedly? Nothing evolves. The Sun is exploding outwards, people are dying everyday, and people's health declines over time. The height of your "evolution" will be a grave. They are going to make fertilizer out of you and everyone else. What about entropy laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy decreases over time and things naturally decay. How could we possibly be evolving with half life affecting you and other materials? Not to mention that man is still killing himself with war and famine and plague. You say, "Look at the technology." Why? We use it to have even more devastating wars by pushing buttons, and hacking codes and such like? Man is not evolving biologically or morally!
Debate Round No. 1
Mr

Pro

A recent study conducted at Ohio State University, based on skeletal data from 30 previous studies, reveals that men living during the 9th to 11th centuries had an average height of about 5 feet 8 inches,today
average height in American men is about 5 feet 9 inches and you say we aren't evolving, if you need me to explain to you it's that we are growing taller as a human species.

My source
http://www.funtrivia.com...
acvavra

Con

Your source said the Dutch are taller than Brits and Americans. They are Europeans too, and Americans were originally Europeans, so now you have exceptions to the rule. Also, a lot can happen between the 9th century and the 18th century creating a lot of different circumstances which you didnt mention. Were the men in the 9th century fed worse or malnourished? Does disease or stress affect body growth? Was there better medical care in the 18th or 9th century? Also, Asians are much smaller than other races, are they having a problem evolving? Blacks are usually the tallest race? Are they evolving faster? Darwin thought blacks were the least developed race on top of that! Since your profile says your a Christian, yet you believe in evolution, you must be a Theistic Evolutionist, right? If so, your going to have a hard time reconciling evolution with the Genesis account of creation. The Bible says God created the earth before the stars. It says there was no rain in the beginning, yet evolution says there was millions of years of rain. I dont know how evolution and religion mix, but maybe you do?
Debate Round No. 2
Mr

Pro

First off i would like to say what you said about God was completely irrelevant, and using my religion against me is ad hominem. Besides the fact, I have many sources stating we did evolve and we still are it's most likely true if not completely accepted in the science world.

My source states Tibetans in the Himalayas have evolved to better adapt to low oxygen at high altitudes over just a few hundred generations.
It also mentions females at which they had their first born child, among the ages the average age dropped from twenty six to twenty two, supporting the idea that younger birth ages were influenced by genetic changes caused by natural selection. to sum it all up the propensity to have a child at a younger age is the result of the inherited traits.

ev�o�lu�tion   
[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

my source
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com...
acvavra

Con

You can complain that religious attacks are ad hominem but you never said I couldn't use religion as my argument. Besides, if you are a theistic evolutionist, you need to reconcile religion and evolution or your not being honest about what you believe. Now about younger birth ages and the Tibetans, again, you are not mentioning all the circumstances. Were these females required to have children at a younger age? How can you prove genetics influenced women to have children at an earlier age? Why was it only Tibetans? Could the weather in the Himalayas have been a factor? Furthermore, while I am rebutting your arguments, you have failed to address mine on entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics. Now, listen, here is a fact: Mules CANNOT reproduce.http://luckythreeranch.com... A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Its a genetic mutation and it cannot have offspring. So, how can one species evolve into another species if the offspring of one species cannot reproduce? Also, according to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, in the Evolution DVD(available at Bible Baptist Bookstore) states that the odds of accidental life happening(lightning hitting a pool of amoebas) is 1 out of 10 to the 150th power(http://www.bestbiblescience.org...(good source to read). There are not that many electrons in this universe! Thats the odds of evolution my friend. Mathematics is something that you cannot refute. Furthermore, water is the last place on earth for life to begin because it would kill the amoebas and ribosomes and cytoplasms from even starting. Demographics further weakens evolution. How? "If man has been here one million years, increasing at half a percent yearly(that accounts for war, famine, plague, etc), with less than 3 children per family, the present population would be 10 billion people per square inch of the world's suface"(Peter Ruckman, Evolution DVD, available at Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola, Florida). Listen, Friend, if evolution were true you would have PEOPLE STANDING ON TOP OF EACH THER HALFWAY UP TO THE MOON!
Debate Round No. 3
Mr

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent for continuing the debate, much respect.
Secondly it is possible for the theory of evolution and Christianity to coexist.

definitions I've included

ad�ap�ta�tion;[ad-uhp-tey-shuhn]
noun
any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

mutation [myoo-tey-shuhn] ;
noun
the act or process of changing.

Now to start, I will first address the earlier issues. "If we are evolving, why are there still monkeys, fish, amphibians, etc. That we came from supposedly?" my opponent states.

my source can easily rebut the idea of why there is still monkeys on this earth examining a similar thinking idea
"If genealogy is real and my cousins and I share the same grandparents, why do my cousins exist?" By that logic, there could only ever be one species of anything on the earth at any given time. Chimpanzees (which are actually apes, not monkeys) are our species closest living relative, but chimpanzees didn't turn into humans. Rather, we shared a common ancestor millions of years ago (that was neither human nor chimp) that split onto different evolutionary paths; one of these paths led to modern chimps and the other led to homo sapiens. Other related species, such as Neanderthals, evolved alongside our ancestors and later went extinct. Every living thing on earth, from humans to monkeys and from daisies to the cold virus, shares a common ancestor at some point in history. "

my other source has collected more than 100 reasons how animals in general are evolving I'm sure this can rebut the earlier last part of the argument my opponent stated.
http://ideonexus.com...

Also I am not saying every single animal on the face of the planet can evolve but instead most, most likely are. Which rebuts my opponents earlier statement stating
"Mules CANNOT reproduce... A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse. Its a genetic mutation and it cannot have offspring. So, how can one species evolve into another species if the offspring of one species cannot reproduce? "

my opponent clearly states

"Also, according to Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, in the Evolution DVD(available at
Bible Baptist Bookstore) states that the odds of accidental life happening(lightning hitting a pool of amoebas) is 1 out of 10 to the 150th power(http://www.bestbiblescience.org...;

obviously the source is extremely biased towards anti evolution theories. Stating basically there is a slim chance of evolution happening but when you multiply all of earths species for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years I'm sure evolution has happened and still is. My sources reinforce the idea no matter the circumstance a change in a adaption is considered evolution.

I hate to say but in some ways it is true, the bible shouldn't be used as a scientific document. They are completely two different worlds.
I am asking you also to not use my religion or anything on my profile for that matter against me.

My sources
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://persephonemagazine.com...
http://ideonexus.com...
acvavra

Con

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for answering my earlier statements. Its much appreciated.

Now he claims that the Theory of Evolution and Christianity can coexist, but doesn't give me reasons why. Then he contradicts himself later by saying the Bible, "shouldnt be used as a scientific document. They are completely two different worlds." He asked me to not use religion against him, though, so I will leave the matter there.

He admits that not every animal does evolve, yet isn't that admitting I'm right? Who determines which animals evolve and which ones do not? Now he calls my source from Peter Ruckman(who he should look up sometime) extremely biased, but its a two way street buddy. Your souce (http://ideonexus.com...) is also extremely biased (Voters you are going to have to decide who has the better facts and logic then). My opponent never did address my argument with demographics either, which, if considered, show that the earth has not been here millions of years. My opponent uses terminology like "I'm sure evolution has happened" but what does that prove? What makes his opinion important? What are the facts is what a debate is about! He says, "no matter the circumstance a change in adaptation is considered evolution." Really? I can move to a warmer or colder climate and ADAPT to the weather. Am I evolving because of that? I don't think so.

Now about this common ancestry business, he said that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, "that split onto different evolutionary paths." What caused the split? He didnt say. Hmm? What determines that we have a common ancestor and what is this common ancestor we share? People think because chimps and humans resemble each other, that they are kin. Poppycock! Couldn't God have created similarities among his creations?

Now he uses a source that shows how animals are evolving. The problem is the source doesnt talk about animals in particular. It focuses on DNA and mutations and adaptations and fossil records. It even mentions the theory of embryonic recapitulation which few evolutionary scientists accept anymore as credible. The theory proposes that an embryo looks like a fish, then an amphibian, then eventually a land animal and finally a human when its born. Ultrasounds can refute that garbage.

Finally, let me conclude this debate with a story of the great lengths evolutionists go through to "prove" their theory. During the famous Scopes Trial of the 1920s, the evolutionists cited the Harold Cookii man(they called it that because a man by the name of Harold Cook discovered one tooth). He said, "It is the tooth of an ancient man and if a tooth looked like this, then his jawbone would have to look a certain way. If his jawbone looked that way, then his face would have to look a certain way. If his face looked a certain way, his cranium would be a certain way. If his cranium was a certain way, his shoulders were a certain way"(Baptist Bread, July and August 2012, July 8th entry). He finally wound up with some big baboon, with a long tail and all. ALL HE STARTED WITH WAS A TOOTH! Years later they discovered that it was really a pig's tooth!

May you come to accept the Bible as the final authority, and not evolution. My friend, the Bible is a scientific document. Its right no matter what some scientist says.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by girg 4 years ago
girg
I will see about setting that up.
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
how bout we debate if the bible is a scientific document?!
Posted by girg 4 years ago
girg
Yes but that information is outdated to what you're doing. The bible is NOT a scientific document. I am not even sure where you pulled that out of. I did vote for the better debater. You were ad hominem, an insulting and just a blatant logical fallacy.
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
Listen girg, you can call my sources biased but so were my opponents. It doesnt matter if the 1920s are long ago, the story is still true. I think its clear you did not vote for the better debater, just what you believe in , like evolution.
Posted by girg 4 years ago
girg
Con:
You can't use Pros religion against him. That is ad hominem.
Posted by Mr 4 years ago
Mr
oh its you again acvavra
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
MracvavraTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know about others, but a debate works in that UNLESS THAT IS A REBUTTAL you can't bring it up as a RFD. Meaning, unless PRO uses the rebuttal against CON, then it cannot be brought up. PRO dropped numerous arguments. CON, though misrepresenting arguments, had unchallenged arguments.
Vote Placed by girg 4 years ago
girg
MracvavraTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used the bible and biased sources(like a baptist DVD or whatever he was talking about.). He was also following ad hominem. The last statement was almost a joke to me, "the bible is a scientific document". That is an entirely different debate. Also cons source from the 1920's is a little outdated i would think.
Vote Placed by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
MracvavraTied
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: Con used misrepresentations of science, poor sources, and ad hominem attacks (using his religion against him) during the debate, while also treating the Bible as a scientific source of information.