The Instigator
Pro (for)
21 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution is true

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 707 times Debate No: 44560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




I challenge con to this debate.

First round for acceptance means only. (Heh, I sound like a scholar.) However, some ground rules:

My BOP will be that Evolution is true. My opponent's BOP will be that Evolution is false.


Round 1: Acceptance
Round 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed.)


Plagiarism not allowed
Forfeiture not allowed
Breaking structure of debate is not allowed.
Personal attacks are not allowed.

Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points.

By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Under NO cicumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed. Good luck to the opposition.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, KingDebater. Youngster v. youngster... this has certainly been a long time coming. If you wish to not take this debate seriously, you may, but this is NOT meant to be a troll debate. I promise you that I will take this Evolution debate to the fullest extent of my ability. May I remind the con that he may ONLY post arguments in this round as to why Evolution is not true. With that said, I will now move on to my arguments.

--Argument I: Evidence--

This section will be split up into multiple sub-points.

--Sub-point I: Fossil record--

The fossil record is a big part of the Evolution theory, and for the most part, supports it. Fossils are animals that have been deceased for a reasonable amount of time before being "fossilized" in rock. Many fossils are apparent in sedimentary rock.

A. A large amount of species that no longer exist today have been found through fossilization. Some of the most famous include dinosaurs, bacteria, and water creatures [1]. This shows that many creatures have been in existence in the past.

B. This helps the Evolution theory because of the fact that one type of species can not simply die out while another type of species comes into the world. Genetic mutations must occur [2] in order for a new species to be created. And that is the Evolution theory from top to bottom- a series of genetic mutations occurring over millions of years. Many fossils are in the distribution of Evolution, not spread out and randomized:

"Yet, when we examine the fossil record, we find a distribution that matches the predictions of evolution, not one of the countless distributions that would not." [3]

C. One of the most important discoveries regarding Evolution was the finding of the various "missing" links between human and ape [4]. Several were found in the African region, acting as the actual missing link between human and ape. In conclusion, the fossil record supports genetic mutations and the various missing links that are still being found today. This concludes the fossil section of my arguments.

--Sub-point II: Adaptation--

Many species around the globe have obviously adapted to their climates, such as polar bears to cold climates. However, digging deeper down, we find another compelling argument for Evolution.

A. Bird beaks is our first specific thing I would like to look at. We have various types of birds, such as predators, berry-eaters, fishers, or the ones that take a dump on you for no reason at all. And they all have different beaks to suit their eating and everyday habits. Take the insect-catching, for example. Small, perfect beaks to catch insects. Take the dip-netting for our second example. Giant beak perfect for catching small to medium size fish. Below is a picture [5] of various bird beaks and how they support my point.

B. Next, insect mouthparts. They haunt you day and night (if you've eve seen them under a microscope.) However, they provide yet another great argument for Evolution. Much like the birds, the insects have developed different mouthparts to support their living habits. Studies have also shown this is linked to Evolution [6].

C. Lastly, we go to human skin color. Humans need sunlight to generate vitamin D, which makes your skin darker (also how you get a tan.) It would make sense that as one migrates up over time, the skin color would grow lighter, as you would receive less sunlight, correct? That is exactly how it happened. Furthermore, the Journal of Human Evolution explains how this supports Evolution [7]:

"The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee. The evolution of a naked, darkly pigmented integument occurred early in the evolution of the genus Homo. A dark epidermis protected sweat glands from UV-induced injury, thus insuring the integrity of somatic thermoregulation..."
"...As hominids migrated outside of the tropics, varying degrees of depigmentation evolved in order to permit UVB-induced synthesis of previtamin D"

I end this argument and will now proceed on to my last one.

--Sub-point III: Evolution is happening right now--

A. For my last argument of this debate, I will explain how Evolution is happening right before our eyes. One example is the Peppered Moth, a famous species along Evolutionists. The moth evolved from a peppery state to a solid-black state to better blend in with their surroundings. Yes, this is only a small scale, but that is technically exactly what it should be: small changes, or mutations, gradually changing a species over time.

B. Evolution is also happening at a microscopic scale, such as bacterium's immunity to antibiotics. Bacteria can, and is, growing an immunity to antibiotics in (somewhat) the human has an immunity to the flu after a flu shot
[8]. Another way this is happening is pests growing an immunity to pesticides. This works in almost the exact same way as the bacteria.

"But if treatment stops prematurely, it leaves some microbes alive -- the ones with mutations that make them resistant to the drugs."

...Which supports the theory of Evolution. Species, over time, form mutations to better survive in their environment.


With my arguments behind me, I can (finally) do my conclusion.

In my arguments, I have argued that:

-The fossil record supports Evolution
-Fossil record is in the order that regards Evolution
-Many extinct species have existed in the far past
-Missing links between one species and another are still being found
-Bird beaks support Evolution through adaption
-Insect mouthparts support Evolution through adaption
-Human skin color supports Evolution and the migration of humans
-Peppered moth shows Evolution is happening now
-Bacterial resistance to antibiotics shows that mutations occur and Evolution is happening now

I thank you for reading and hand this debate over to con. I wish him the best of luck.





Evolutionists think that we started out as piles of bones, and then they evolved into fossilised bones (so it has armour and different layers, like we humans do today), and then they evolved into us.

j - justification

C1: Evolution is self-refuting

P1) If Evolution is true, evolution is false.

j. As confirmed by many scholars including Eugenie C. Scott, PhD, Everything evolves [1]. This means that as well as the currently living creature evolving, its descendents evolve too. But this is proof that evolution is self-refuting, as if all animals evolve, then no animals actually evolve because they are exactly the same animal as their ancestors. So, if evolution is true, evolution is necessarily false.

P2) If Evolution is false, evolution is false.

j. This is a tautology, and necessarily true. Otherwise, it violates the law of non-contradiction [2], a well-established law of logic that all existing things must abide by [3].

C) evolution is false.

j. This is the logical conclusion following the first two premises. It’s a simple Modus ponens syllogism [4].

C2: Gaps in the Fossil Record

P1) If there are gaps in the fossil record, then evolution is unjustified.

j. This is self-explanatory. If there is a lack of evidence for something, then to believe in it is unjustified.

P2) There are gaps in the fossil record.

j. Consider the following diagram:

Fossil record gap

We can clearly see several gaps in the fossil record.

C) evolution is unjustified.
j. This is the logical conclusion following both premises. It's a simple modus ponens too [5].

C3: Genetic material in bones

P1) If we evolved from bones, then they must be able to pass down genetic code to their offspring.

j. This is simple. When you reproduce, you must carry down genetic material. Otherwise, your babies will be nothing. This is mathematically sound:

P2) Bones carry no genetic material.

j. This is self-explanatory and simple too. Bones themselves have no chromosones. If they did, then our bones today would carry inheritable chromosones. However, they don't.

C) Therefore, we couldn't have evolved from bones.
(This is a crucial point against evolution)

j. This is the logical conclusion following both premises.

C4: Pure coincidence

Fossils have commonly been found in the shape of an animal [6]. However, this is pure coincidence. If organisms composed of bones existed as we've found them with no tissue or anything to connect them and gaps between the bones [7], the bones would fall and be scattered about in a pile, not in the shape of an animal. The formation of the bones we find in fossils, therefore, prove that evolution is not the best explanation for fossils, something that evolutionists claim they're evidence for it.

C5: The evolution of other properties

We cannot be descended from fossils and bones because not only do we have body parts consisting of different elements, but collections of bones have no way of passing down genetic information that could then go on to mutate inside the egg into something such as an eye. Bones have no way of mutating to create different elements or finding something of the same species that could manage such a thing.

In summary
For different reasons:
- Evolution is self-refuting (C1)
- Evolution is unjustified (C2)
- What evolution claims are our ancesters could not be our ancestors (2 reasons - C3 & C5)
- Evolution is highly improbable and not the best explanation for fossils (C4)




[3] ibid

[4] (3.3)

[5] ibid


[7] ibid

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, KingDebater. I am very happy you took this debate seriously. It has come to my attention that I have only made this three rounds, so you may refute and conclude in the same round. I will have my rebuttals in the same way I usually do.

However, I would like to point out that I can't access three of the oppositions sources, making them unreliable. His sixth link is merely a bunch of pictures of fossils, making me search for a specific one in general. A few of the pictures from his link SUPPORT Evolution.

--Rebuttal I: C1--

In the opposition's first contention, he says Evolution is self-refuting. First off, your link supports Evolution... again. The title says "Everything Evolves, even Creationism." Second off, your statement is not true... at all. No two animals can ever be the exact same, as you stated. They would need to have same height/weight, same type of blood, same red blood cell count, same bones, etc. Each animal is different.

Over tens of millions of years, it would make sense that an animal has made so many little changes in appearance that it becomes a different animal with different looks, habits, etc. In conclusion, you grossly missed the point of Evolution in this statement.

Your second statement, "If Evolution is false, Evolution is false," can go either way. It can also mean "If Evolution is true, then Evolution is true." On your second argument, you say that Evolution false without ANY easily refutable arguments to back your side.

--Rebuttal II: C2--

Your second point probably even pissed off a few Creationists. First off, we do not have a lack of evidence, just that some missing links need to be filled. Second off, we do not have indisputable evidence for God, but it is justified to believe in Him. We do not have indisputable evidence for Creationism, but it is still justified to believe in it. Your second point is heavily flawed, as it affects a lot of things in the universe.

Your second point, gaps in the fossil record, is a common Creationist argument and any Evolutionist knows how to refute it easily. The picture also had me laughing. There are MANY animals that have since been found to fill that in. For example, various species of Homos (such as Homo Sapiens) have been found to correct the latter link.

As for the gaps in the fossil record, it is easily refutable. Not every single animal can fossilize, and few fossilize very well at that. Also, things happen over billions of years that can wipe away fossils. Evolutionary biologists predict that many transitional links will not be found, and a few animals don't fossilize at ALL. Therefore, science predicts that there will be some missing links in the chain of Evolution. Second, we have found many traditional links. Such as the missing link that connects birds to dinosaurs, or whales to their ancient terrestrial ancestors. Thanks to the help from [1] to strengthen this rebuttal.

As for your last statement, same goes for almost any other theory. Gravity, the Earth revolves around the Sun, Creationism, how the Earth was formed, God, etc. It is not "unjustified" to believe in those things.

--Rebuttal III: C3--

Another misconception. We didn't evolve from just bones. Animals evolve from another animal with tissue, blood cells, Hereditary Material, and the things that one has to have to be classified as "living." You also have no source for your information, which lessens my understanding.

...Bones have genetic material and DNA. If you have ever heard of a bone cell, you would know this. In fact, we have enough genetic material in the bones that scientists are using them as a stroke help [2]. This is actually common knowledge, as the average person on the web knows it [3]. Inside the bone, there is also bone marrow, which contains the cells needed. Therefore, your point is invalid.

--Rebuttal IV: C4--

Your fourth point does not make any sense. You are either trolling me or do not know the full system of fossilization. When an organism dies, it still has tissue, the body, the brain (etc.) and stays in one spot. It is buried rapidly and put under a ton of pressure so it can't move, erosion can't take place, and predators can't get it [4].

Second, a coincidence of this size is simply astronomical, and to the furthest extent of implausible. For thousands, if not millions, of fossils to "randomly" line up in a shape of an animal that they once were, would be impossible. Also, I don't see where you got the "fall" thing from... most animals (land animals) die on the ground.

--Rebuttal V: C5--

The last rebuttal of mine goes for your contention #5. I have already shown that bones do, in fact, have genetic material. A sample of bone DNA has a half-life of 521 years [5]. The picture even SHOWS A SCIENTIST drilling into a bone to try to EXTRACT DNA. So bones have DNA, can mutate, and we didn't evolve from just bones.

The resolution is negated. Please go to round 2 to see my arguments. I thank con for the debate, and I urge a pro vote.



Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KingDebater 2 years ago
I'm just happy because I got a free lose.
Posted by KingDebater 2 years ago
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
I think it was supposed to be a serious debate, but KingDebater ruined it.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
Is this a troll debate? I only ask because of the debaters in question.
Posted by KingDebater 2 years ago
Why are there so many people who argue in favour of evolution?

I thought Charles Darwin was dead.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
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 conceded the debate in the last round... But even without that, Pro would have won because he flawlessly refuted all of Con's contentions.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 2 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con almost seems to have trolled this debate. Poor conduct and honestly ludicrous "evidence" illustrate this.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "nuh uh?" Con's dishonorable concession results in a major loss of credibility, and any potential vote of mine.