The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points


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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,781 times Debate No: 11922
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I hear a lot of stuff about evolution, but all of it is so unbelievable and virtually impossible. Give me proof of evolution and I will try to rebut your arguments for evolution. Thank you in advance, con, for accepting this debate.


Let's start. As my opponent did not offer any points in his first constructive, I will simply dive right into my case.
- My opponent seems to purport no substantial evidence of evolution exists. But a quick search on Google will tell you right away that the idea that we have evolved from monkeys in not a hypothesis- rather a well- accepted theory. The reason for this is that once monkeys evolved overtime to better suit themselves in a race to genetic perfection- not only to better suit themselves for their environment but overall (we evolved from arched backs) (source: and
-We have also found all of these proposed early humans such as Lucy, the first of which, which led to people to once again discuss the high probability of evolution. (Homo Habilis)
-To keep religion far from this debate, how did we get here if evolution didn't occur? Humans did not see spontaneous creation (source: any science textbook) thus we had to evolve from far more primitive beings, and technically the entire human race came to be from a single (important) cell if we are taking it back that far.
-We are evolving today (people are born without wisdom teeth) along with vestigial structures in humans pointing to previous uses early in evolution that are unnecessary now. (Tailbone: we had [possibly] tails at some point!)
- Not to mentions other points like the fossil record, which shows evolution overtime through sediments.

Thats all I feel like typing right now, I'm prepping for a debate tomorrow. I await my opponents refutations with...bated breath.
Debate Round No. 1


1) In answer to your claim that humans have evolved from monkeys, then why are there no transitional fossils? There has not been one fossil that exists between the supposed transformation between monkeys and humans.
2) But now your probably saying, "What about Lucy?" Well nearly all experts agree she is just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee. Also, isn't it interesting that her bones were found 1 mile apart from each other? And were assumed to be from the same animal because of "Anatomical similarities" (bears and dogs have anatomical similarities) (Source: Also, human tracks were found very near Lucy's body, giving the simple explanation that Lucy must have been someone's pet monkey. Also, it is said that Lucy's hips were trampled by some animal, which helped hide the fact that she was really a chimpanzee. So scientists cut up the hip bones, and made a plaster cast to arrange Lucy's hip bones to give her a more human-like appearance. See for more info.
3) I do believe that we were made by a creator, and I have a question: Who writes almost all of the scientific textbooks available? Evolutionists. This is because it is against the law to teach creationism in a public school, so a science textbook is not a legit source.
4) We are not evolving today, and many people have been born without wisdom teeth. As the population grows, so will that number, but it has nothing to do with evolution.
5) I would like more info on how fossil records in sediments prove evolution, because there are just fossils of species that are extinct now.

Thank you con, and I am eagerly awaiting your response.


1. My opponent evidently didn't realize that what I mentioned in C5 about the fossil record shows the transformation of animals overtime. All of the homo- fossils that have been found are also widely accepted to be transitional, as you move down the line of evolution (monkey --> homo- --> human (homo Erectus- by the way while I am on this subject, it is because these fossils are transitional that they are all given the prefix of homo-)
2. My opponent's second contention is simply several claims and with no actual evidence (purely speculatory) (his one source is a blog- which as many debaters know that IN NO WAY is that a reliable source for a card of anytime based on the fact that anyone [including me] could write a blog with what I want- ie less reliable than wikipedia). First I want to bring up that yes lucy was, in the form she was found as, in fact very ape like. But this can't be dismissed and "nearly all experts" actually agree she is not an ape but rather Australopithecus africanus- and not an ape. ( - -
[Minus wikipedia these are all 100% legitimate .edu (ie school) sources]. My opponent, with outrightly stating, implies Lucy was either "planted" by biologists or was a pet monkey. But if we simply look to the carbon dating of the Lucy skeleton - 3.2 million years - considering the concept that it was one's pet when that idea was more likely than not even conceived, this argument is ludicrous. Also, my opponent provides no evidence of footprints, but even if there were, this means absolutely nothing as someone might have walked over Lucy without realizing it. But even if just for one moment let this be true, one cannot deny the obvious relations of later homos- thus its quite apparent the correlation between early homo- and now is apparent still. One more thing I want to bring up before I move on is my opponents sources were (and he said himself he was:) religious or from religious sources. While I respect my opponents beliefs, I am sure any debater on this website would agree with me that religions has little of a place here. The reason being, debate originated on these subjects in congress- where there is an explicit separation of church and state- thus debate on this or any subject should follow the same guidelines.
3. My opponents third contention is more likely than not his most speculative and simply unsupported point he has. He first purports that a science textbook is not a legitimate source. But I am sure any: professor, congressmen, college student, parent and myself would wholeheartedly disagree with this. In fact, one could clearly state with substantial point and evidence that in fact a textbook is by far the most reliable source we have in the modern age and not all of us have access to libraries, universities, or other higher-information/education centers that may be considered the same level of a textbook. Then my opponents makes highly illogical leaps in his logic- that all scientific textbooks are written 1. by evolutionists and 2. are thus unreliable, as they are forced to teach such information. First off, my opponent, with 2. contradicts 1. The reason is that if even one person is against evolution who writes or contributes to a science textbook is against evolution this falls. And since he purports that some are forced to write "against their will" evidently some are not evolutionists. Thus a textbook is easily the most legitimate source one can offer to you without being religious to the point where is ensures that the writer is not a so called "evolutionists".
4. My opponents purports that wisdom teeth loss in numbers are due to something with the population. I am willing, first, to assume my opponent missed my point entirely. Over the past several years, as many people are aware of, people are being increasingly born without wisdom teeth as they were vestigial structures (which I will review later) and became unneeded. Thus we evolved out of a need of them and thus less are being born without such teeth. Thus, evolution, in this small way as an example, is occurring. I am next willing to accept that yes, if you look out the window you will not witness a man turning into a monkey. But it takes millions of years for this process to occur, facts and sources of which were stated in 1.
-Opponent dropped my vestigial structure argument --> extend across the flow
5. Finally, I will clarify for my opponent who doesn't seem to understand what fossil record is: (if he has followed the link he may have been informed but I will clarify further in case there was a misconception) (again the source is about a quarter way down)
The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones. It addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.]
I believe it to be unnecessary to clarify this card anymore- if the voters and my opponent could visit this page I believe they will find more than enough substantial information of how the fossil record further supports my contention and my case.
Before I close, if my opponent so wishes to argue against them and have me refute again in later rounds, more points that prove evolution I have not yet brought up include:
-Chemical and Anatomic Similarities
-Geographic Distribution
-Genetic Change
Again, if the voters or my opponent so wish to, information is on this page:

Thank you as vote pro, skookie5
Debate Round No. 2


1) OK well can you give some examples of these transitional fossils?
2) One of your main arguments was that carbon dating proved that it could not have been a pet ape and it's owner. You said that the carbon dating dates it back 3.2 million years ago. Well one problem with that; carbon dating is only accurate at 60,000 years at it's most (see which is a reliable .edu site, and
3) I say that science textbooks are not legitimate sources because the writing comes from only one viewpoint. You said "And since he purports that some are forced to write "against their will" evidently some are not evolutionists." I don't know when I said this, so please explain what you mean here.
4) People are being born without wisdom teeth because of genetics. A trait of no wisdom teeth keeps getting past down, and as time goes on more and more people are born without wisdom teeth. Source: ( I do agree that micro-evolution exists, and I believe that it is all due to genetics; but that is not what we are debating here.
5) I have to reasons that explain why fossil records are not evidence of evolution: 1. Among the fossil records, there are fossils of animals like bats that have been dated back millions of years. BUT bats exist today, and there skeletons are identical to those of the million year old fossils. 2. The links. In fossil records, there are surprising absences of the jump from one cell organisms to multiple celled organisms; from invertebrate to vertebrae; fish and amphibians; reptiles and birds; and of course monkey and man.


I have spent the whole time refuting my opponents arguments, but now I will present one of my own.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics. I do not have time to write anymore, and I will explain more about my argument next round.


skookie5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


jdizzle forfeited this round.


skookie5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jdizzle 7 years ago
I have to delete my account. Sorry for not posting arguments, as I wasn't able to. Jesus loves you, and if you ever feel empty without a purpose in life, just go to him.
Posted by skookie5 7 years ago
Disclaimer: I forfeited because my opponent offered no new arguments and I thought it best to give him a chance to develop his new contention.
Posted by gizmo1650 7 years ago
Does pro even understand what scale thermo dynamics works at,
every single particle in the universe, (or another theoreticly closed system, which life, earth, and the galaxy clearly are not)
Posted by Awed 7 years ago
Con, the "transitional fossils" you're talking about are called homologous structures.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
The Theory of Evolution DOES NOT STATE humans evolved from monkeys. >.< They share a common ancestor.

I'll debate evolution with you if you like, jdizzle.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by dankeyes11 7 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:07