The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Evolution

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...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,990 times Debate No: 25727
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Anti-atheist

Con

First round is acceptance

next is arguments. I am against evolution because its false.
Magic8000

Pro

Yeah... I'll accept this one.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Con

Here are my best arguments

Why evolution is wrong:

1.Evolution teaches that in the beggining there were fish that started to jump out of the water and catch nats and bugs above the water. Then the fish developed wings. All I can say is LOL why would you believe something as silly as that! And where is this fish with wings are u telling me that ALL transitions died and didn't get fossilized.

2.Evolution has destroyed society. Crime has gone up thanks to evolution. Or as it should be EVILution.

3.Hitler used evolution and used darwinism to justify murder of the Jews.

4.Abiogensis is flawed and has never been proven.

5.There are NO transitional fossils. The transitional fossils that are taught in schools like Piltdown man and Nebraska man have been proven to be frauds.

6. The speed of light is not constant. Therefore the starlight problem is solved.

This is why evolution is wrong.

Vote Con
Magic8000

Pro

Oh wow.

1. I've never seen this anywhere else! That the fish got their wings because of bugs above the water. Where are the fish with wings? Well we have quite a few species of them [1]

2.
[2] "One could just as well say that "Since more Americans have joined churches, crime rates and other social ills have increased." Church membership increased from 25 percent to 65 percent between 1870 and 1990. The point is, while both statements could be technically correct, both are misleading and irrelevant, in that correlation does not mean causation.

Crime statistics are better tracked now than they were a century or more ago. So, without careful study, it is not clear whether the actual incidence of crime has increased. The case of "social ills" is even more ambiguous. It depends what social ills one is concerned with, but likely with respect to some social ills we are better off than we were a century ago.

In short, a correlation of crime rates or social ills to the teaching of evolution has not been demonstrated.
Even if such a correlation existed, that would not mean that crime has increased as a result of the Theory of Evolution.

Even if crime had increased as a result of the Theory of Evolution, it does not follow that evolution is therefore false. It may have beneficial or undesirable sociological effects, but those effects say nothing about the truth or falsity of the theory.

During the large crime drop in the 1990's, there was no significant change in how widely evolution was taught. If there had been a correlation, then the teaching of evolution would have decreased as well."



3. Guilt by association fallacy. Hitler used "Social Darwinism" which is different and refused to accept biological evolution because it means that whites came from the same source as other races.

4. This is a straw man. Abiogenesis isn't evolution. Abiogenesis is life from non-life, evolution presupposes life.

5. Nebraska man and Piltdown man are not taught in schools. NM and PM are known fakes and do not prove or disprove anything.

How about Archaeopteryx, Hyracotherium, and Ambulocetus. The only way you can claim this is if you have a twisted understanding of what transitional means. Transitional doesn't mean half-fish half land creature,but the transitional features of it.

6. [3]

  1. The possibility that the speed of light has not been constant has received much attention from physicists, but they have found no evidence for any change. Many different measurements of the speed of light have been made in the last 180 or so years. The older measurements were not as accurate as the latest ones. Setterfield chose 120 data points from 193 measurements available (see Dolphin n.d. for the data), and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data.

  2. If Setterfield's formulation of the changes in physical parameters were true, then there should have been 417 days per year around 1 C.E., and the earth would have melted during the creation week as a result of the extremely rapid radioactive decay (Morton et al. 1983).

  3. As an aside, some creationists assert that fundamental laws have not changed (Morris 1974, 18).
Also this is on Answers in Genesis' Arguments Creationists shouldn't use page[4]

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://evolutionwiki.org...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
Wow the con sure was an idiot
Posted by MrCarroll 4 years ago
MrCarroll
Anti-atheist, I am against evolution and facepalmed at you arguments.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Oh you facepalmed eh. I facepalm at your evolution.

Thetruthexists is right! Citeing wikipedia LOL. Wikipedia shouldn't even exist. I moped the floor with evolutionist atheist Magic8000.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
*Facepalm.* Con, I literally laughed out lout when I read it!
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Thetruthexists commits the fallacy of poisoning the well and card stacking fallacy. Wikipedia should have no differing views on fish. If you think every single thing on Wikipedia is wrong then just Google "flying fish"
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Thetruthexists commits the fallacy of poisoning the well and card stacking fallacy. Wikipedia should have no differing views on fish.
Posted by thetruthexists 4 years ago
thetruthexists
The person for evolution has automatically lost. He cited wikipedia. Really? Haha
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Advice to Con: 1) Give yourself more than 1 round of arguments next time so you can rebut your opponent. 2) Learn at least a little about evolution from a reliable source before you argue against it. Con's arguments were thoroughly refuted by Pro.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's points 2, 3, 4, and 6 have nothing to do with the truth of evolution. On 1, it was a complete strawmann of actual evolutionary theory which was pretty obvious even if Pro hasn't mentioned this. On 5, Pro admitted the fraudulent nature of Piltdown and Nebraska man but countered by showing legitimate transitional fossils like Ambulocetus. Sources obviously go to Pro for actually using them in support of his case.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Anti-atheistMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This is pretty obvious.