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

Evolution isn't Supported with Scientific Evidence

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: Select Winner
Started: 8/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 78434
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I am a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that God created everything about 6,000 years ago and that there was a massive, worldwide flood about 4,400 years ago.

I will be arguing that evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it is either flawed, irrelevant, or could be reasonably explained from a Creation viewpoint. Since the theory of evolution is taught in schools as science, and Creation is presented as religious, the burden of proof is on con to show beyond reasonable doubt that evolution can and did happen.

Science - Knowledge gained from observation, experimentation, and demonstration (Can be proven).

Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Can't be proven).

Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Round 1 - Acceptance, Con explains how evolution supposedly happens and provides evidence that it has happened in the past.

Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain Con's evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence (No new evidence added).

If Con has any problems or questions about the definitions or debate structure, he can say so in the comments.


First of is evolution is the scientific explanation for biodiversity, not the origin of life, so any argument concerning the origin of life is a straw-man.
I will also explain what a scientific theory is, and why it is different from the more common definition of a theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Saying evolution is just a theory does nothing more than prove the ignorance of those who say it.
In order for something to qualify as a scientific theory, it has to go through the scientific method, and has to be repeatedly tested, and confirmed through observation, and experimentation. So anyone who says that evolution hasn't or can't be tested in the lab are wrong, other wise it would not be considered a scientific theory.
A scientific theory is the highest graduation, or achievement in science because in explains an entire body of evidence.
This is past experimenting just to see if something is fact, a scientific theory explaining why it is fact.
The fact of evolution are substantial and are conclusive, this is no longer a debate in science. The discussion has moved on to what are all of the natural properties that govern biological evolution (most of which we have now discovered such as genetic variation, and population mechanics)
Other theories in science include the Theory of Gravity, the Atomic Theory, the Big Bang Theory, and the Germ Theory, all of which no smart person challenges due to to their large body of evidence.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. My contention is that evolution can’t happen and there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past.

Unfortunately, Con has violated the debate structure I set in round 1. He was supposed to explain the process of evolution and provide evidence for it happening. This has left me with nothing from Con to rebut. So instead of doing nothing with my argument, I shall show some problems with evolution. Con’s job, in his next argument, is to explain and provide evidence for evolution, as he was supposed to in round 1. In round 3, I will attack his evidence and he will defend it.

The way evolution supposedly occurs is that mutations add new, useful information to the genome, and by way of “survival of the fittest”, they are selected out of the population to reproduce.

“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations.”—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

This sounds simple, but the problem is that mutations are never beneficial and never add anything new. If they have any effect, mutations will only weaken or severely damage the organism.

Mutations are random mistakes or “typos” that occur during DNA replication. No one has ever observed a mutation add new, useful information to the genome. Genes and traits are carefully interlocked with each other, such that one gene could affect many traits and one trait could be coded for by many genes. They all work together like one complex machine. Mutations, which are random, confused errors in this machine, are never helpful.

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”—Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]


In the 1900’s, many scientists spent years, some even their entire lives, irradiating fruit flies, simulating mutations that would only be seen from many millions of years of mammalian generations. The x-rays caused translocations, deletions, inversions, etc, (what would normally be seen in naturally occurring mutations) in the DNA code. The scientists observed hundreds of different mutations with hundreds of different effects on the poor flies. Not one mutation was beneficial. Flies that didn’t die from the mutations had all kinds of abnormal deformities and impairments. Here is a partial list of the results:

“Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations.”—Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

Similar experiments have been done with other plants, and animals all showing that mutations are not unhelpful 99% of the time, they are unhelpful 100% of the time.

As we have seen, a mutation will never improve an organism. Yet Con wants to suggest that billions upon billions of beneficial mutations, all working together, could “evolve” a macromolecule into a human. I would like for Con, in the next round, to give an example of an overall beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic information.

Commonly used to support evolution is the fossil record and the increase in complexity of organisms found from the bottom to the top of the strata. But the strata and fossils could also be explained by a worldwide flood and any ordering that occurred would be due to habitat, mobility, and intelligence. What I would like to discuss though is the problem of fossil gaps or missing links. This quote summarizes the issue quite well.

“If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.”—Duane T. Gish, “The Origin of Mammals” in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

If evolution were true and certain animals changed into different kinds of animals over millions of years (e.g. dinosaurs to birds), we would expect to find countless fossils of animals in the process of evolving. Yet we find none. No intermediate forms exist. All that is found in the fossil record are fixed kinds and extinct animals, none of which show a smooth evolutionary transformation.
For example, the bat has remained the same ever since it first appeared in the fossil record. No transitional forms led up to it, and it didn’t change into anything else.

Dr. Colin Patterson, who was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History wrote a book several decades ago titled “Evolution”. Luther Sunderland, a Creationist, asked Dr. Patterson why he had not included any photos of a transitional fossils in his book. Patterson replied “I fully agree with your comments on 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.”

I ask Con to, in the next round, give an example of a fossil that shows evolutionary transition from one kind of animal to another. Most of the commonly used “missing link” fossils are misinterpretations or fakes.

Sources: Listed throughout argument.


elthagreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Con forfeited. This debate is no longer valid since if Con posts evidence for evolution in the next round, I won't get a chance to rebut it.


sorry for not posting my argument I got caught in life I guess. When I found is was to late. So I won't deliver a final argument but would like to continue the debate again.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by elthagreat 3 years ago
yes that would be great
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago

Do you want me to re-challenge you with this same debate since you didn't have time to do it beofre?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit