The Instigator
funnycn
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
goalex
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 5 votes the winner is...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 624 times Debate No: 62295
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

funnycn

Pro

I believe evolution is true. Con must prove evolution is not true or is mostly false.

This is a debate about evolution. If you choose to accept, follow these rules

i. First round is acceptance.

ii. If you use the bible as a source, you must have another source to back up the claim. You may NOT use two bible sources. If you ignore this rule, that claim in the argument is invalid.

iii. No insulting, no trolling, no nonsense. I will not tolerate it.

iv. If you forfeit one round, you lose the debate. This is so the debate remains constant and no one accepts and just forfeits (which has happened to me before). So if you accept you must debate, no forfeiture.

v. Round 5 is the conclusion. No rebuttal or new arguments. Restate your OLD claims or add other notes.

vi. If English is not your native language, please say so. This way, you won't get points off for spelling & grammar.
goalex

Con

I accept^^ I am korean, but I know some English so I can talk English.
Debate Round No. 1
funnycn

Pro

Thank you for accepting con. My argument goes as follows...

Here are my reasons.

i. Darwin's Finches.

ii. Evolution of Whales.

iii. Common Descent.



Firstly, Darwin's Finches were different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. The finches had different sized beaks. The distance between the island meant that the birds did not interbreed. Furthermore, the islands had different types of food to offer to the finches. This meant natural selection, a big part of evolution, was involved. How? The different sized beaks helped the birds of separate species eat the food the island offered. Darwin's finches helps us understand that natural selection is true. The birds separated from a common ancestor and had offspring. The offspring then had offspring and over a course of years the offspring had new beaks. This took a long time however. [http://evolution.about.com...]

So what is natural selection?
"the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

There are more examples of natural selection. For example...the peppered moth!

During the industrial period of London, the peppered moth used to be white with little black spots, hence the name, peppered moth. Over time, London got more black smog. The birds ate lighter colored moths, they were easier to see. However...black moths weren't eaten. The moths that adapted didn't get eaten and reproduced. A big example of natural selection.

What about the Deer mouse? In the woods, the deer mouse is a dark brown. It helps it blend in. However, in the Nebraska sandy hills, the deer mouse is a lighter color. It helps it blend in with the sand. The deer mouse is one example of very fast evolution. It only took a few thousand years for this to occur.

[http://www.discovery.com...]

Parts 2 and 3 will be in my next argument.

goalex

Con

Accepted.
There are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution and accept creation and a Creator.

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro"evolution"small changes within a species"but"macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally""you"!

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution"the "molecules to man" theory"we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution"the notion that God employed macro evolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

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 pale ontological [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.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an"illusion"of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true"and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution"and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.
Debate Round No. 2
funnycn

Pro

Thanks for that argument Con.
I also like how you can "disprove" evolution without the bible. Nice job. Now I'm going to look into your argument.

Fossils..." 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."

This part I really liked. However you aren't right about it not evolving. I'm sorry but this statement, is. While there isn't much evidence to prove of an ancestor there is proof it evolved. How? Because it is the ancestor! There is evidence the trilobite evolved, with new eyes, different shapes and different thoracic segments. Sorry, but that is NOT true the trilobite never evolved.

[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
[http://www.trilobites.info...]


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

That's kind of what science is about. Assumptions! Make a hypothesis then test it. To be a scientist, you must assume.

"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?"

Dogs turning into something else? They have. The link to this website has a chart

http://www.evolutionevidence.org...

However I'm going to explain it as well. The modern dog you see today has evolved from the "Canid". They are very similar, however evolution has taken course. Then there is the "Leptocyon, Eucyon and the Dire Wolf". The start of the modern dog. These three evolved into man's best friend over a course of 40 million years.
[http://dinosaurs.about.com...]
So saying dogs never evolved is also not true.

"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?"

I read the whole argument and it really doesn't bring up plausible evidence that shows evolution is false. So what was the point there?

"How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?"

Prehistoric bees pollinated prehistoric flowers. Isn't that easy to answer no? Don't believe me? Scientists have found a 100 MILLION YEAR OLD BEE. Still no proof evolution is "false". [http://www.nbcnews.com...]


Now my second part of the argument. The evolution of the whale!

Millions of years ago, there lived a land mammal knows as the Pakicetus. Over the years it evolved into the Ambulocetus. Then into the Kutchicetus. You get the point?
[http://www.amnh.org...]
How does this prove evolution? You were talking about fossils earlier right? What about the Pakicetus fossils found in Pakistan?
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Let's look at the Indohyus. This small creature shared something very similar to whales. The involucrum! The involucrum is a layer of new bone growth [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
The Indohyus also showed it's aquatic lifestyle. The bones of the Indohyus were dense and had a thick and heavy coating. This helped the Indohyus stay underwater. This suggests a tactic the Mousedeer (can't avoid mice and deer can we?) and the Water chevrotain. When threatened, they dive into the water to hide. Let's not forget the Indohyus's bones are similar to a Hippopotamus.

That is all I have to say. The third part of my argument is next.
goalex

Con

goalex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
funnycn

Pro

Forfeiture? Also con plagiarised his last argument. Citizen_ofthe_cosmos pointed that out in the comments. Plagiarism is illegal.
goalex

Con

goalex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
funnycn

Pro

Proof CON plagiarised his argument

http://www.ucg.org...

This is the article con stole. Plagiarism is illegal.
goalex

Con

goalex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by a_mysterious_stranger 2 years ago
a_mysterious_stranger
@Citizen; Yea, he plagiarized, he's not getting my vote.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
Disregard last message
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I didn't plagiarize. That's the thing I tried to avoid.
Posted by Citizen_ofthe_Cosmos 2 years ago
Citizen_ofthe_Cosmos
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO THE INSTIGATOR: Funnycn, your opponent is plagiarising the work of an article created by Mario Seiglie, a man who is devoted to christian apologetics (http://www.ucg.org...).

Goalex' arguement in round two is 100% plagiarised. He posted the entire article of the mentioned author.
Here it is: http://www.ucg.org...

I was skeptical that this was the work of goalex, seeing he mentioned his english isn't too good. How would such a person compose such a rhetorical arguement. All I did was google "Evolution FALSE acronym" and literally the first hit was the article.

Of course I shouldn't be doing your work, but I couldn't resist in this case. Please take this into account.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Evolution is obviously true, except there are many humans now that believe they can control it. Hitler was a perfect example, and all his scientific henchmen. Prove that wrong.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
What burls?
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
"Your argument fails because..." is an attempt to be the judge of the debate, and an insult to the opponent.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
funnycngoalexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit and plagiarizing. pfffffft
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
funnycngoalexTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by flash7221 2 years ago
flash7221
funnycngoalexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit and plagiarizing. nice combination right there
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
funnycngoalexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: With the forfeitures and the plagiarism by Con I see no reason why I should award Pro no less than a 7-point victory.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
funnycngoalexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Plagiarism plus ff.