The Instigator
19debater19
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Evolution

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 4 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 41322
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

19debater19

Con

1) Birds disprove darwin\’s \"natural selection\". The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

2)Species without a link proves evolution wrong.
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists\’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solid within their DNA code.


3) Single cell complexity proves evoluion wrong.

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The theory of evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.


4)Human egg and sperm proves evolution wrong.

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother\’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic changes. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the male on a daily basis. This short time between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary theory. A harsh winter or some other environmental condition experienced by the male is quickly lost and cannot affect conception that may occur months later. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species is impossible.


5) DNA error checking

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.Mutations are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage and passed on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation. The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.


6)Chaos from organization

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally toward disorder or chaos unless changed by an intelligent being.

Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler, \"One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness - the fact that, on the average, things will get into disorder rather than into order, if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.\" This scientific law actually refutes and contradicts the theory of evolution in its entirety. The whole universe is not getting better and more specialized; it is running down; it is wearing out.


Good luck to PRO!
Romanii

Pro

Very well. I accept. Thank you for actually trying, unlike last time (http://www.debate.org...)

1) The evolutionary riddle of Birds' Wings has already been solved, and not in the way you think it did (using half-grown wings to climb trees...what?). Birds evolved from Dinosaurs, specifically the therapods. There is fossil evidence that during the Cretaceous period, certain smaller species of therapods started to evolve feathers for the purposes of insulation and helping increase lift while jumping to catch insects. Therapods slowly evolved larger and larger feathers, and arms that looked more and more like wings, until bird-like dinosaurs such as Archaeopteryx and the Microraptor had evolved. From there it is quite easy to trace their lineage down to modern day birds.

2) "Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."
And your proof for this is... where? You have no idea what behind-the-scenes work has been done to prove evolution. Scientists never "make up information". There are many measures for avoiding that kind of thing within the scientific community such as allowing others to reproduce their experiments and study their findings. The only person I see making up information here is YOU.
And P.S. we have discovered fossils that clearly represent the ancestors of elephants and giraffes.

3) Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? It is very famous and CLEARLY CREATED 20 different amino acids just by simulating the conditions of primitive earth with only inorganic matter. Almost all the types of organic matter have been determined to basically be rearrangements of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Phosphorus atoms. In addition, water (H2O) and formaldehyde (CH2O) often react to produce Ribose, a primary component of RNA.

4) I don't understand what you said about gametes or how it disproves evolution. Please explain more clearly.

5) We only notice lethal mutations more than beneficial mutations because lethal mutations are much, much, more obvious (e.g. Cancer, missing limbs). The ones that are beneficial make such small changes that most people don't notice. That is why it takes hundreds of generations for even a small change in phenotype to occur within a population.
I myself have a mutation which has made my all ligaments extremely loose. As a result, I have dislocated both my knees and one of my shoulders at least once, but at the same time I'm much more flexible than ordinary people. We don't really notice the subtle mutations that don't kill us, but those small non-lethal mutations have been the driving force behind evolution for 4.5 billion years.
And by the way, we HAVE been able to witness new species of bacteria evolving via gradual mutations over millions of generations within just a few months because of their minuscule life spans.

6) I personally am religious, however I still believe in evolution, like most religious people. God created life through evolution by causing "random" mutations in self-replicating organic compounds like DNA and RNA. I suppose this is where the theist evolutionists and atheist evolutionists diverge: whereas atheists believe that such complex organisms evolved by pure chance from random mutations, theists believe that the evolution of the complex organisms was directed by a divine power via purposeful mutations. In other words, I also believe your point that the universe is too complicated to have assembled itself into such a complex form by pure luck, and that it must have had some help from God.

Religion and Science can both be true if only we will realize the truth that scripture wasn't meant to be taken literally. How do I (and most theists) know this? Because the guys who wrote the scripture weren't trying to write a science textbook or history textbook; they were trying to provide spiritual instruction and moral examples to live by.
Debate Round No. 1
19debater19

Con

I felt like having some fun with the titles here, so it is not just arguments, but like "F for Fossils" etc.

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now to post some rebuttals.

And your proof for this is... where?
Websites everywhere around the web. It is the same as saying: where do you find proof for the fact that we don't make these things up?

"And P.S. we have discovered fossils that clearly represent the ancestors of elephants and giraffes."
Please provide a link for this. How do we know that it is simpily just another animal that looks like those animals that were hunted to death, and had no realtion to elephants and giraffes whatsoever?

"I don't understand what you said about gametes or how it disproves evolution. Please explain more clearly."
So, all of us likely know about genes. Our mothers and fathers carry genes, and we get them. But by evolution, not many of these genes could've existed. It would've always been the dominant trait to win, and we'd all look the same.


Romanii

Pro

"F for Fossils"

You're wrong. Fossils can also be preserved imprints of living things that have decayed since, and we actually have plenty of preserved imprints of the trilobite's ancestors (http://www.trilobites.info...).

You claim that "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator". It also takes a lot more ignorance. Like I said, the Creator and evolution can coexist. Science doesn't explain the basis of evolution: exactly why would the DNA mess up in its replication? Religion can easily explain this as divine intervention. Religion and Science can coexist, and science has way too much evidence to just toss out.

You also spent a long time discussing missing transitional forms. However, in everything that you wrote, you failed to give even one valid example of this. There are LOTS of transitional forms of Dinosaurs growing feathers (e.g. Velociraptors), fish growing legs (e.g. Ichthyostega), and reptiles getting hair (e.g. Therapsids).

"A for Assumption"

If you haven't noticed, it takes thousands of generations for even small changes to become evident within a population, and MILLIONS of years for a totally new species to evolve. Evolution was discovered approximately 150 years ago, which is not nearly enough time for us to observe even a small change in an animal population.
And like I said before, we HAVE witnessed new species of bacteria evolve from old ones. Example: penicillin became an obsolete antibiotic around the late 1900s as certain species of bacteria EVOLVED to be resistant to it through the use of a new enzyme.

It is only rational that Darwin wouldn't act too sure of his idea, because at the time he was proposing it, it really was only a theory based on common sense and logic. In addition, he didn't want to offend the Christians too much, so he tried not to be too defiant. Since then, scientists have confirmed it over, and over, and over again through fossil evidence, genetics, and microbiology.
You claim that Evolution is still only a theory. But honestly, so is virtually every other scientific idea in the world. You can't be 100% sure of anything, and that is what allows science to change itself when part of it is discovered to be wrong. They always want to leave some room for error so that more can still be discovered. This does not make it inaccurate, though. Right now, there is 0 evidence against evolution, which is why it is accepted as correct. There is a LOT of evidence against the Bible's validity, though, and I would share it with you if that were the topic of this debate. But it is not, so I will save it for another debate (which I WOULD like to have, by the way).

"L for Life"

What does the "Chicken-Egg Dilemma" have to do with evolution? It's a philosophical question!
Biologically speaking, the egg came first because animals have been laying eggs for hundreds of millions of years, whereas the chicken is a comparatively recent development...

"S is for Symbiosis"

Scientists are not "stumped". Such symbiosis has already been explained and proven. Flowers first appeared in the late Cretaceous period as a new way of plant reproduction. Insects had already been around for a very long time and took advantage of flowers as a source of food, accidentally pollinating the flowers in the process. Eventually, a species of insect evolved that specialized in getting food from flowers and inadvertently pollinating them at the same time: the bee.

It seems that you don't know much about evolution, because you keep on declaring evolution hasn't figured out the answers to problems which it actually already has...

And now to rebuttal you rebuttals:

"Websites everywhere around the web. It is the same as saying: where do you find proof for the fact that we don't make these things up?"
Like I said before, you obviously didn't explore the web enough because you keep talking about how inadequate evolution is by providing problems which scientists supposedly haven't figured out, but in reality scientists HAVE figured all of them out.

"Please provide a link for this. How do we know that it is simpily just another animal that looks like those animals that were hunted to death, and had no realtion to elephants and giraffes whatsoever?'
Very well.
Elephants: http://www.eleaid.com...
Giraffes: http://www.giraffeworlds.com...

"So, all of us likely know about genes. Our mothers and fathers carry genes, and we get them. But by evolution, not many of these genes could've existed. It would've always been the dominant trait to win, and we'd all look the same."
No, not at all. If you have ever learned about Punnett squares, you would know that the only time there is a 100% chance that the offspring will have the genotype BB is if both the parents have genotype BB. If both parents have genotype Bb (carrying the recessive trait but displaying the dominant one), then off spring will still stand a 25% chance of displaying the recessive trait through genotype bb

Please don't keep making false statements about evolution. Evolution has vast scientific evidence for it; otherwise, it would not be so widely accepted by the scientific community.
Debate Round No. 2
19debater19

Con

  1. PARACONFORMITY: Evolutionary geologists contend that rocks were laid down in a uniform, predictable manner over billions of years. These scientists label and date these rock layers with familiar names such as Jurassic and Pre-Cambrian. The term Paraconformity describes those rock formations that are missing certain layers which are predicted by evolutionary geology. None of the typical gullying and weathering is visible in these examples, unlike what we see when the ground has been exposed for long periods. At several places in the Baltic region, clays of the so-called Pleistocene age rest directly on clays that contain Cambrian age fossils, creating an evolutionary gap of 400 million years. Yet in some places the break between layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays. Creationists say that the evidence from these anomalies indicates that the traditional, evolutionary dating methods for rocks are faulty. What do you say?

2. GEOLOGY REVERSED: Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth’s rocks were laid down in a uniform manner over billions of years. In Glacier National Park, however, a block of Precambrian “old” rock sits on top of Cretaceous “newer” rock. Why is this important? Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this embarrassing example of 1 billion year-old rock sitting on top of 100 million year old rock. Perhaps the rocks have moved since they were laid down? Unfortunately, when geologists look for signs of movement such as scrape marks or tallis piles they find none. Additionally, the tensile strength of rock makes it highly unlikely that the older block of rock moved across the newer without shattering to dust. Looking at the evidence, creationists say that both rocks were created at the same time. What do you say?

3. RADIOMETRIC DATING: This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock;

A. the rock contained no ” radioactive “daughter-product” atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.

B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.

C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay).

These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result?

4. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science?

5. PERMANENCE OF KINDS: Also called stasis, this field of observation has determined that most animals have remained relatively unchanged throughout the fossil record. Despite millions of (supposed) years and billions of chances to evolve into higher life forms, no evidence exists for this theory. Many fossils from “older” rocks, when compared to their modern counterparts, are often identical in form. Worms still look like worms, not some hybrid creatures. Not one change of one life form into another has ever been recorded, yet evolution is regarded in most circles as fact.

6. TRANSITIONAL LIFEFORMS: If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one species to another, as evolutionists insist, then we would expect to find many fossils intermediate between all the species. Yet, we do not find any transitional species. Instead of finding fish growing limbs and reptiles sprouting wings in the fossil record, what we actually see are gaps. Creationists continually ask evolutionists to explain the following gaps; non-living matter to protozoan, protozoan to metazoans, metazoans to invertebrates, invertebrates to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to fur-bearing quadrupeds, quadrupeds to apes, and apes to man. Have you ever seen or heard of a transitional fossil? Of course not. They don’t exist!

7. PETRIFIED LOGS: Petrified logs represent something of an enigma for evolutionary scientists. These logs point to a rapid, catastrophic event, such as a massive worldwide flood, rather than a slow burial. These trees all have their branches stripped off and yet their bark is intact. This would indicate a very different method of deposition than we currently find in forests and it speaks of an event of enormous power. Creationists believe much evidence exists for a worldwide (Noah’s) flood. Which belief system best explains petrified logs to you, evolution or creationism?

8. POLYSTRATIC TREES: Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers (“many strata”) of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 feet deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, no one doubts that these trees were buried rapidly, from top to bottom. Otherwise, the top of the trunks would have decayed well before new rock layers had a chance to surround them. An example of polystratic trees can be seen at Spirit Lake in Washington State. The observable, catastrophic events at Mt. St. Helens buried thousands of trees rapidly. Sometimes evolutionists try to explain polystratic evidence as a reburial event, but this can hardly be the case when the rock layers are situated directly against the trunk of the tree.

9. EPHEMERAL MARKINGS: How long do animal tracks last in the woods? Does rain leave an imprint for millions of years? Ephemeral markings include ripple-marks, rain imprints, worm trails, and animal tracks. These fleeting emblems are found in great abundance in the fossil record. As you can well imagine, such fragile marks are very easily disturbed, yet the fossil record yields a large amount of them. Most of these imprints were made in soft, wet sand that hardened into rock. These marks must be buried very fast or they will just wash away with the next wave. Furthermore, they must be buried at least to the depth of the imprint or the rock above the imprint will squash it away to nothing. This is ample proof that these ephemeral imprints were buried in a fast-moving, catastrophic environment such as Noah’s flood.

10. BIOTURBATION -- Bioturbation is evidence of animal activity left in rock. This phenomenon would be expected in the upper few feet of most layers of rock. Rapid bioturbation is seen on the East Coast of the U.S., where hurricanes regularly deposit fresh new layers of sediments along the exposed beaches. These sediments are thoroughly inhabited by creatures within a few weeks time to a depth of many feet. If the top few feet of rock layers have been exposed for thousands or millions of years, as evolutionists maintain, we should find profound evidence of animal life, as well as root tracts from plants. Yet, as we look carefully at the geologic column, we find precious little evidence of bioturbation. How can we explain the absence of these animal “tracks?” Consider the expected results of a worldwide flood as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. Such an event would deposit rock layers so quickly that no bioturbation could occur. What do you think? Why can’t we find evidence of bioturbation in so-called “ancient” rocks?

11. SOIL LAYERS: Another concern for evolutionists is the lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record. With layers of earth exposed for what is proposed as "millions" of years you would expect to find many soil layers. Even in desert environments soil layers would build up after eons of time. Yet, in the fossil record very little evidence exists. Creationism predicts that only certain selected areas on earth would present soil layers; exactly what you would expect after a worldwide flood, and exactly what the earth reveals.

12. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversions can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God?

There are 12 reasons, right there, that evolution is false. I dont have enough space to post a rebuttal, but I'm sure you'll have a ton of fun rebutting this.




Romanii

Pro

Thank you for your argument. I definitely will have fun giving rebuttals to these 12 new points of yours :)

PARACONFORMITY: The constant shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates results in such anomalies

GEOLOGY REVERSED: Again the constant shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates explains all of these

RADIOMETRIC DATING:
A. Obviously the rock hasn't decayed yet right after being created, so it is not going to contain radioactive "daughter-product" atoms in the beginning.
B. New atoms don't just "bond into" rocks unless there was a chemical reaction, and those generally don't happen a lot deep under the Earth's crust.
C. Radioactive decay is a very slow and steady process. It does not just randomly shift in speed and manner. So yes, it is safe to assume that the rate of decay has always been the same.

OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: It is possible that the oil and coal samples they tested were created recently by less ancient animals. Either that or the method itself was invalid. There is much more evidence supporting the fact that oil and coal are millions of years old.

PERMANENCE OF KINDS: Animals evolve because they must change to suit their environment. Worms didn't evolve because they were already suited enough to their environments for the population to survive for so long.

This is where I'm going to have to stop, as I have only 2 minutes left :(
I'm really sorry. It's just that I've been on a trip to a place with no internet access for a few days, and when I got back I had exactly 15 minutes to post my argument for this round. Sorry!
If you would like I can post the rest of it in comments...
Debate Round No. 3
19debater19

Con

Here are some more problems on evolution:


Statistics are not Evolution’s Friend

Statistics and probability are great enemies of Evolution. Because Evolution utilizes random mutations as the main engine of their postulate, we can then use the laws of probability to exam their claims. Many evolutionists cry foul here, but they have no reason to do so as they also use probability to lay out their claims.

Here is another quote from an amateur evolutionist.

“All this complexity can easily come about through evolution, as is explained in ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ (a book by neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins). This is because it is often cumulative, and so more likely and more efficient. . . . Nothing betrays a lack of understanding of natural selection quite like saying that the chance (of Evolution being correct) is too small. Natural selection is an algorithmic process, it the complete OPPOSITE of chance. The author states that there hasn’t been enough time. This is all too human thought of our own significance. The Earth was formed; it is estimated, around 4,600,000,000 years ago. In comparison, Homo Sapiens are thought to have emerged around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Four and a half billion years ago seems more than enough.”

I am really intrigued by evolutionist’s ideas of natural selection. It has no intelligence to drive anything. It is a predator, it is a storm, it is a drought, it is a thousand other things that will either destroy an animal that has the wrong alleles in its phenotype or allow a "superior" animal to thrive. In fact natural selection is not algorithmic but it is digital. Either alive or dead. Natural selection is not the opposite of chance, it just makes sure the good alleles last and the bad ones disappear, that is all. But natural selection is also blind and may also just snuff out a really good allele that had its head down at the water hole too long. As we spoke above in the genetics section the mutations are decidedly bad and lose information and lead to bad alleles, so natural selection usually limits their existence in a population. But natural selection is also "noise" in a population that doesn't allow a single point mutation a very good set of odds for surviving and passing on those genes. Evolutionist speak of natural selection like it is intelligent or something and can spot a mutation that it needs to save. That is utter nonsense.

Short Primer on Probability

Now we will look at the “cumulative” idea and see if that is a go or not. For Evolution to be true there has to be a large amount of cumulative organization of positive mutations. In fact Evolution says that all life came out of prior non-life. Darwin’s warm pond or the lightning charged primordial soup of other evolutionists. Could that really happen? What do statistics say?

The amateur evolutionist above thinks that four and a half billion years seems to be enough, but is it?

We will give him not the 4.6 billion years for life but the whole supposed age of the universe of 20 billion. We will even assume that ALL of the 20 billion years are good and that all the precursors to life are in some warm primordial soup (we will discuss this in the Biochemistry section below) somewhere just waiting to do their thing.

Let’s talk briefly about probability which is a subset of Statistics. What is the chance if you toss a coin you get heads? Assuming the coin is equally weighted, and not a trick coin, it is 1/2. On a die the probability of rolling a six is 1/6. The probability of tossing a coin and getting heads and rolling a die and getting a six is 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. Now this doesn’t mean that in twelve tosses and throws you will get simultaneously a head and a six, it means that if you throw long enough 1/12 of all throws will have both a head and a six.

Now let us get a little more complicated. Let’s figure the odds or probability of randomly spelling the phrase “the theory of evolution”. There are 26 letters and one space possible adding to 27 possible selections. There are 20 letters in the phrase and 3 spaces. Therefore the odds, on the average, spell out the phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes! That is only one success in 8.3 quadrillion, quadrillion attempts or 8.3 x 1032. Now suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second). On the average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this method.

Whoops! We ran out of time just trying to randomly recombine correctly a 23 letter and space phrase. You see the probability multiplication rule is not so kind to the randomness of evolution thought.

But let’s look at biological beginnings. You see in that warm pond or primal soup we just assume that there were amino acids there and we will assume that there were all the L type necessary for life. We will look later at Biochemistry and see it those assumptions are safe, but for now we will just assume them. One thing we will have to turn off is natural selection, because natural selection won’t work here. We are just trying to polymerize a self replicating organic structure like a DNA or RNA molecule, and natural selection assumes that a good allele will be safe and a bad allele won’t, and we don’t have any good or bad alleles yet. We are just trying to get the genes now in the right sequence. If they are not in the right sequence they won’t work and if they are, they will. And there is no way for evolution or natural selection or whatever other magic driver the evolutionists can come up with to know if the sequence is right until it replicates. There is no cumulative process here as a partially correct complex molecule won’t work and would be discarded until one does.

The odds of forming a chain of 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acid bases is 1 x 1064,489! Now that is just one complex molecule and life requires much, much more. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of the free living organisms, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. A human DNA molecule can contain three billion amino acid bases. That is not counting all the other enzymes, proteins, hormones and other life chemistry needed. These odds are utterly impossible and shows that evolution being the source of life’s beginning is not even remotely possible.

Fred Hoyle stated this: “Two thousand different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these even in 20 billion years. I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one of the many thousand of biopolymers (Life molecules) on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on earth.

“Astronomers will have little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are groups of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.

“They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). The curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations. . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics.”

Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp 521-527

Weasely Dawkins

We will now look briefly at a case of weaseling by a master weasel Richard Dawkins of “The Blind Watchmaker” and “The Selfish Gene” etc. (Yes I have read them both!). Richard Dawkins is a neo–Darwinist who has championed the Evolution of random mutations and natural selection which was falling awry in evolutionary thought in recent years. Mr. Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker” developed a program on computer to generate the phrase “methinks it is like a weasel” in about 164 supposedly random iterations. This computer program was quite a novelty in the early 80’s when it was written, but today it is quite primitive.

But the program has some problems.

1. The outcome is known and targeted, whereas in life chemistry there is no target, there is only something that may work when the sequence is right and there is no way of knowing it might work until you get it complete. No near guesses allowed.

2. Correct guesses are saved. In life chemistry there is no way of knowing if any iteration has protein sequences that will be useful later as the only way of knowing they are right is when the whole complex molecule works.

3. It is a computer program with the parameters carefully chosen by Dawkins to make sure the outcome is what he wanted. If the parameters are tweaked another way the real probability comes back normally. Dawkins sped up the random mutation rate to accelerate the evolution rate and tried to use these figures to prove evolution could happen with a mutation rate that would destroy a population. Weak thinking in a Weasely mind.






Romanii

Pro

Wow, you have a lot of arguments...
I suppose I will just give rebuttals to your new arguments as well as the old ones that I did not finish.

OLD ARGUMENTS:

6. TRANSITIONAL LIFEFORMS- You presented several supposed gaps in transitional life form fossils:
-Non Living Matter to Protozoan: No fossil record is left at such a molecular level; however, we can do experiments today (such as the Miller-Urey experiment) which do indeed prove that inorganic molecules can be combined into various organic compounds that are the basis for all life, including protozoans
-Protozoan to Metazoan, Metazoans to Invertebrates, Invertebrates to Fish, Fish to Amphibians, Amphibians to Reptiles, Reptiles to Birds, Reptiles to Fur-bearing Quadrupeds, Quadrupeds to Apes, Apes to Man: READ UP ON EVOLUTION. All the "examples" you just named have actually already been found. You should watch the BBC documentaries "Walking with Monsters", "Walking with Dinosaurs", and "Walking with Beasts". Literally all the transitional species you think don't exist are named in those 3 documentaries

7. PETRIFIED LOGS- Wood takes any where from 10 to 15 YEARS to decompose.Any strong thunder/lightning storm can bring down trees, and a lot can happen to a log in 10 to 15 years, especially if it is near water, like a lot of trees are. Just because a log is really big doesn't mean that a huge flood came in, ripped down the tree, and buried it. The ripping down and fossilization of a log could have easily, and more likely have happened separately. Evolution definitely gives a better explanation for petrified logs.

8. POLYSTRATIC TREES- Unless I am missing something, it sounds like you just disproved your own theory. The ashes and igneous rock created by volcanic eruptions like at Mt. St. Helens preserved the trees...

9. EPHEMERAL MARKINGS- I hope you realize that Noah's flood isn't the only fast-moving catastrophic event that has ever happened. Any flash flood has the same type of effects on a local level.

10. BIOTURBATION- Here's an experiment for you to try. Go to the beach and walk to the area where the waves are stopping. Leave a footprint in the wet sand right after a wave recedes, and then watch how long it takes for the next few waves to wash away the foot print as if it had never existed. Animal footprints on the beach don't last much longer than that.

11. SOIL LAYERS- Soil is much lighter than rock and is easily washed or blown away. Thus soil layers are not nearly as permanent as rock layers, and are not to be found millions of years later.

12. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS- This doesn't have anything to do with evolution. This has to do with Cosmology. I personally side with you in saying that all of the mass and energy in the universe must have been made by God, but at the same time, an atheist can just as easily pose the question of where God comes from. No one has valid answers to questions about the beginning of the universe and there is a good chance that no one ever will unless time travel is invented.

NEW ARGUMENTS:

"Statistics are not Evolution's Friend"
Basically, you have said that the Universe and all its phenomena (like Life) are way too complicated to have assembled themselves purely by chance. Here, I agree with you. It IS way too complicated to be assembled purely by chance. However, if we don't take scripture literally, we can logically see that God directed the creation of the Universe THROUGH the laws of science. He caused those "random mutations" in purposeful ways in order to advance the evolution of life.
Most theists already know this. Only a small population of theists called fundamentalists continue to insist on a literal interpretation of outdated Hebrew mythology, rather than accept all the well-supported discoveries on the true workings of God's creation.

"Short Primer of Probability"
Again, I do not support a completely secular version of Evolution at all because of the reason you stated: the chances of such complicated life just evolving by pure chance are indescribably small.

"Weasely Dawkins"
Agreed. Evolution does not happen purely by chance.

Back to you, Con.

SOURCES:
(1) http://www.paleobiology.si.edu...
(2) http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us...
Debate Round No. 4
19debater19

Con

I do, don't I? I can be good, when I want to, at least. I would like to thank you for giving me another chance, and for the whole debate.

"Universe THROUGH the laws of science. He caused those "random mutations" in purposeful ways in order to advance the evolution of life."
How does it advance life in any way? Maybe he caused mutations after Creation, thus 'evolving.' That may be what throws scientists off. Note that we are discussing the whole theroy of evolution.

On to my last, and final, arguments. More about why Darwin and the therow of evolution was false.

If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!

We often hear that science has proved Darwin's theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory regarding the evolution model does conflict with the creation model. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept the creation model of origins. Surprised?

Darwin's theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man).The creation model, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. If the creation model is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove the creation model wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found.

Darwin taught that many little changes over a long period of time will add up to big changes. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would either prove or falsify his theory. Darwin realized the difficulty the fossil record (missing links) gave his theory when he said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Today, top evolutionists know that Darwin's predictions of what the fossil record would reveal have failed.

It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin's theory.

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!

Evolutionists tell us in the new "punctuationalist" theory, that, in effect, a lizard laid an egg and out pops a baby bird. Because of the compete lack of missing links, evolutionists now accept as fact what creationists predicted from the creation model all along; namely, that no transitional fossils would be found. Evolutionists that still use Darwin or the fossil record as evidence of their theory in the '90's, are like stubborn and closed minded old country doctors who have not kept up with the latest developments of science. Then there are those who cannot even consider the possibility that there is a creator God. These scientists are so biased that they cannot not see how much better all the scientific data fits the creation model of origins as opposed to the evolution model.

Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted . Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677, "Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary Hypotheses", reported this in 1986, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tend to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds."

Australopithecus or "Lucy", another big star to the evolutionists' stage show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey's never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. With good reason, they considered it simply and extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, "Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did..." (Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89)

So Good-bye Lucy! Au revoir Archaeopteryx! R.I.P. Darwin!

Although knowledgeable evolutionists buried most of Darwin's theory over 20 years ago, they still cling to a few parts like "time". Lots of time! Darwin and modern evolutionists still have faith that given long enough periods of time, frogs would evolve into handsome princes. Today they just can't explain how! With enough time the impossible becomes probable! What today's evolutionists lack for hard proof in the fossil record they make up for in blind faith in a magic wand called time. Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?

That's all I have for today, I'm all worn out! Thanks for the debate! :D

Romanii

Pro

Thank you for your argument. I'm glad that you took the chance to show your actual debate skills!

You said "How does it advance life in any way?"
Well, I would consider us humans to be slightly more advanced than mindless microbes...

You said "...we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links... the links have not been found."
Actually the links HAVE been found. Do some research first before making statements like that (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Just because a few scientists have decided to reject evolution doesn't mean anything. There are still a couple million of scientists who accept evolution. As for Gould, many scientists have periodically doubted their own theories; Dmitri Mendeleev rejected the existence of atoms for a long time after publishing his Periodic Table of elements.

"Evolutionists tell us in the new 'punctuationalist' theory, that, in effect, a lizard laid an egg and out pops a baby bird. "
You are misunderstanding the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It does not mean that rapid evolution happens within a generation. It means that species don't evolve much for the long periods of time in which their environment isn't changing. When the species do evolve, it is due to changes in the environment favoring one phenotype over another, causing more rapid evolution. Note that "rapid evolution" still takes several generations to accomplish small changes.

When you talked about Archaeopteryx, you mentioned two bird-like species that lived long before Archaeopteryx. However, only two such fossils have been found in the history of paleontology, so there is more likely a reasonable explanation behind how 2 such fossils could have gotten so deep into the ground. There is much more evidence supporting the theory that Archaeopteryx is a link between reptiles and birds.

When you talked about Australopithecus, all you said is that it might just be an ancient species of ape. However, there is evidence of direct progression of features between it and Homo Habilis, between Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus, and between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens.
You also said "Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size..."
This proves even further that chimpanzees are related to humans...

You said "Darwin and modern evolutionists still have faith that given long enough periods of time, frogs would evolve into handsome princes."
That is a completely untrue assumption. It would be almost certainly impossible for frogs to evolve into humans given just time. The external conditions also have to be exactly right for a species to evolve in a certain way and the conditions to make frogs evolve into humans would have to be spectacularly strange.
Evolutionists believe that organisms evolve given the right conditions, both internal (e.g. mutations) and external (e.g. climate), in combination with ample time for the phenotype of the organism to gradually change over generations. Not just "time".

Evolution has way too much undeniable evidence supporting it to simply dismiss. I don't even know how it is possible to reject such a well-evidenced theory in favor of ancient Hebrew mythology. Especially when God and evolution are so easily compatible!

Anyways, thank you for the debate! It was really fun giving rebuttals to your arguments :D
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
PLAGIARISM ALERT:
Con copied his entire round 2 argument from this website word for word:
http://www.ucg.org...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Wow, we're not going to know who won the debate until sometime in May 2014 -_-
Posted by Somecrap 3 years ago
Somecrap
"The Holy Bible disproves Evolution. Thy name, thou art in Heaven, exists. Therefore, evolution is BS, as proved by the Holy Bible." xD
Posted by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
Much better!
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
This looks better :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
19debater19RomaniiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to go with con on this one, even though he did not pick my side. He showed much more efficient arguments, and had better spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
19debater19RomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con provides the single most convincing argument against evolution in round 2. The fossil depth of trilobites does not coincide with the time claimed necessary for evolution to take place.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
19debater19RomaniiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: More convincing arguments go to Pro, as his argument addressed points brought up by Con. Also Con seemed to be rambling and not making coherent arguments. Conduct points are awarded to Pro, as Con was attacking people in his arguments, and grossly misinterpreted Gould in his closing remarks. Gould was a proud Darwinist. Grammar, goes to Pro as I said before Cons arguments were difficult to read. Sources point are shared as there were no necessary links to multiple arguments in the debate, even though Pro did offer up two I still called it even.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
19debater19RomaniiTied
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: Pro was the only who has used sources. I would say because of that, Con's claims are empty. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence as well."