The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Evolution is real

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 66201
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I will debate you about evolution if you wish to debate me, if not, I don't care


Yes, sure I will try to debate you, but this is my first time doing this so I do not expect to win.
Debate Round No. 1


It isn't about winning or loosing, it's about making people think differently, showing them a different opinion so they can learn something. In most cases, both sides have something to learn from the other, but not in all cases. Now, let's debate. For this. Let us first come to a consensus about the definition of evolution:

Evolution: a process by which living organisms develop (or evolve if you prefer) different traits over time and eventually become so different from the original organism that it is classified as a different species of organism(s). (Summary: change over time)

I would like to see if you agree on my definition of evolution before I proceed with this debate, otherwise there will be confusion on what we are discussing.


I am going to have to disagree. There are actually two different types of evolution.

Macroevolution: Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. (In my opinion this never has happened and I do not believe in it)

Microevolution: evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species. In my opinion Microevolution does happen because things do change over time. Look at the tadpole for instance. It is born looking more like a fish and it slowly changes into a frog but it does not change species.

Creation: That God created the earth and everything in it and around it. God created everything.

Big Bang Theory: The theory in which a tiny dot exploded and popped everything into existence randomly. (I do not believe in this)
Debate Round No. 2


Since these are all points (except creation and the Big Bang, which are both irrelevant) I am simply going to copy, paste and reword part of my arguments from my other debate, just for my own sanity.

As for macro evolution

This article ( ) explains exactly that, I am not going to go through the whole process, it would take too long, but it is basically a process of mistake and error in the process of mistake and error by the part of your body that can happen causing one of the sides to have missing sections that are added on to another part of the DNA. If you need clarification on what I am talking about, the link is right there if you want to read it.

(Here is some more evidence macro evolution exists that I found while searching for proof of a common ancestor )
Here is an article attempting to prove there is a common ancestor: this article basically says that having one common ancestor is 10^2,860 more likely to be what happened than the next most likely theory (the one you proposed in your last statement). Does this prove with complete certainty? No, but it is such a big likelyhood that it may as well be rounded to 100% and call it a day.

Micro evolution does not prove macro evolution, but what I have stated above is how it would work AND a scientific study that proved with practically complete certainty that that is what happens.


Alrighty, so now that we kinda have the definitions down we should probably start debating.

I am arguing that Macro evolution is not real.
You think that in the beginning when the earth was formed there were some cells near the rocks or in puddles (or something of that matter) and somehow those cells turned into animals. The question is, where did the cells come from? Because to me it sounds like we all just came from rocks.
Another thing, Look at any species of animal and tell me that their body systems were made incorrectly. They all were made different and unique. That could not have came from some random cell that just appeared.
Look at the way the earth turns. It turns because of gravity and God created gravity. It is impossible for something to come from nothing. If I hold out my hand and touch my palm and hope an apple will appear, it is not gonna appear.
Debate Round No. 3


I find several things wrong with your argument 1. I have already proven macro evolution to be so near to fact that it is as sound as saying that I can see my hands when I look at them with sufficient light. 2. you list no sources and use no evidence to back up your claims. 3. There was no life for at least just less than 1 billion years after earth existed. I cannot tell you where exactly cells came from, I wasn't there, there are many theories, one is that it was an acidental process, a coincidence of circumstances (which surprisingly makes sense, because of the size of the universe), another theory is that an organism piggybacked itself on an asteroid that hit the earth. I personally don't care which you believe, even if you believe that god created the original life on earth, because where it came from matters little, because their is sufficient evidence In my last statement that there was most likely one shared ancestor between all life on earth. I can look at animals and say their bodies were made imperfectly, I can do that by simply looking at the human body, think about it, and you can find many imperfections. Why are the veins and nerves so close to the surface of the skin? That's one thing I would like you to argue to be perfect, because it isn't. Made incorrectly? Ya, our bodies are biologically PROGRAMMED to self destruct, we have genes that tell us to die, and that prevent us staying youthful, and you call that correct? I know, population control and all, but really? I would argue it COULD come from some random cell, I would suggest you stop making your statements seem like you feel like you are 100% correct. Look at the way the earth turns? What does that mean? And how? Yes, the earth turning is fantastic, but that proves nothing, something being beautiful proves nothing. Death can be beautiful too, does death prove there is a god? No! The Big Bang is what creates gravitational force by the way, if you ask me how I will link you to an article on it, but that isn't what this debate is about (just going to point out that it was the church that actually originally denied gravity completely, just saying) I agree, nothing can come from nothing, but what's your point? And how does you going on to gravity accomplish anything? It's evolution we are discussing, not gravity or how the universe began. I agree you cannot make an apple appear, but I again don't see your point, I am not discussing how the universe began, and for good reason. It matters very little how the universe came to exist, the facts we know from science are still facts, and can still be repeatedly proved by the same experiment. Stuff stays the same in the universe whether you believe in the Big Bang, or if you believe god created everything.


You are correct that nothing is perfect. We are living in a world of sin. Nothing is perfect. Yes, you tried to prove macroevolution to be correct but you said that you think it can be proven by microevolution. I believe that is false and this link does too >>> You also said not to act like I know everything. That makes no sense cause a debater is meant to be confident. Yes I know that has nothing to do with proving macroevolution wrong, but you brought it up. Anyways without sin everything would be perfect. Yes our bodies are meant to self destruct (you could say anyway) but if they never died then there would be no point in living. The earth would be wayyyy over populated and that is just another point that God made the earth. He made it so that you can make life decisions on whether you wanna go to heaven or hell. Logicially and Scientificially something cannot come from nothing. Have you ever seen a dog have a horse. No. No one has. Let's say I had an apple seed. I planted it. An orange tree grew. NO! That is not possible. One cell cannot change to another species. It is just obvious. Thank you for your time. I am done. I know I probably failed at this but I only took five minutes because I have school to do. Have a nice night. I will pray for you. Jesus loves you. He wanted me to tell you that. He loves you just as much as He loves me, even if you are not a Christian. But you cannot get into heaven without his word. He is not dead. He lives in me and He wants to live in you. He is knocking on your door. Please let Him in. OK I am done bye. Sorry if you think I wasted your time. love ya
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by WillDC22 3 years ago
1. Sin is a man made concept
2. That website you linked has a horrible layout (not that that's your fault), and I could do a better layout (yes, I can code websites, I took a class on HTML coding)
3. Perfect doesn't truly exist, and if it does, I have yet to discover it
4. I feel it necessary for me to tell you I am an agnostic (since you brought up god)
5. You could plant an apple tree and have an orange tree grow, only then you question what happened to the apple seed, and wonder who the f*** planted that orange seed
6. What do you mean by "one cell cannot change into another species"? Well, perhaps not, but what about the next cell? Or the next? It would be a gradual process would it not, so I guess you're right, ONE cell cannot change species, but the way you said it just confused me.
7. No you didn't waste my time, I look for anyone who brings up questions even I haven't thought of.
8. Jesus's teachings aren't specific to Christianity (not that I am an expert, but I know some things about it)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: In order to gain a true comprehensive RFD, I have employed background knowledge. However, If it wasn't brought up in the debate, I will not include it. Unfortunatley I coudn't find the scientific american source since it just redirected to the homepage. If con during the last round had said what the link says in debate he would have won arguments. However he did not. In the end, pro defined evolution in such a way that abogenisis was not relevant in today's debate. If there are any questions, please message me.