The Instigator
jmlandf
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Biowza
Con (against)
Winning
127 Points

Evolutionary Theory is a Farce

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,475 times Debate No: 5123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (27)

 

jmlandf

Pro

I Affirm: Modern and Past Evolutionary Theory is a Farce. Note: So as not to get into a semantical argument Farce could easily be replaced with "not true" or "incorrect". The motivation of the Pro is to ascertain evolutionary theory, with current knowledge, should not be accepted as true or a plausible explanation for existence. Macroevolution is what is being contested not microevolution. Evolutionary Theory implies macroevolution.

Definitions(more definitions to follow if the desire or need arises)
Farce: A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery

Circumstantial Evidence: is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

Evolutionary Theory: evolution;theory of evolution; macroevolution; Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

I intend to present 3 general topics of debate to support my position.
1.Scientific...Empirical Facts and Finds
2.Social/Political/Religious/Ethical implications
3.Circumstantial Evidence

1.SCIENCE
A) The Age of the Earth. For evolution to occur it would require a very long time to do so. In order for evolution to have any weight a several billion year old earth is necessary to support the theory. At this point it would be very easy for my opponent to rebuttal if he/she could offer one proved dating system that supports our Earth over 100,000 years old. I intend to prove there is not one accurate dating system that can support this notion.

i.Tree Ring Dating, Dendrochronology.
It would be nice if my opponent could find a tree over 10,000 years old just to throw the Intelligent Design/Creationist crowd out of the mix. Tree ring dating is not disputed and very accurate. What a humorous coincidence, if one tree was found to be older than the age many literal bible interpreters hold to, the faith would be easy to dispute. Such is the case no tree has been found over 5000 years or so. Even finding a tree over the supposed flood would probably suffice.

ii.Radiometric Dating
I won't deny this can be an accurate form of dating if the unknowns are known. The problem is several aspects are not known. The limits and assumptions of isotope dating have become known since their discovery, but are often under emphasized. Radiometric Dating has been known to give varying ages to the same specimen. There are 3 major weaknesses of radiometric dating. You must assume there is a constant rate of decay through-out the entire age of the sample, not possible to determine. Second you must assume isotope composition has not been changed by fractionation. Third it is assumed that samples have been closed systems over large amounts of time, which should be challenged. All of these assumptions can change radiometric dating by billions of years to the younger. I will agree that Radiometric Dating is fairly accurate of determining if one thing is older or younger than another, however the actual age requires to many assumptions to be reliable. Further there are many radiometric dating systems, some support a very young earth.

iii.Geological Column and Index Fossils
The geological Column is dated by Radiometric Dating now. Before Radiometric Dating they just guessed. Index Fossils were used to date the layer, but the layer also dated the Fossil, and this for years was how Geologist and Archaeologist dated Fossils. Is that not a fraud or just pure ignorance?

The age of the Earth can not be proved to be older than 10,000 years old with accurate and reliable dating techniques. It can be proved to be at least 10,000 years old. All the accurate and reliable dating techniques used only support a young earth and are primarily used to date artifacts made by humans with accuracy.

B) Common Decent
I can see how one can look at the animals and living things on this world and see their similarities amongst each other. I concede that a monkey and human look similar. I see how we have quite unusual animals that can swim, fly, run, and sometimes do all at once. I believe this to be the only solid evidence for Evolutionary Theory but it also could evidence a common creator or intelligent design. Common Decent supports Evolutionary Theory in as much it supports all other theories of our existence.

C)Genetics
I understand this is often cited by evolutionist as a way to establish closer common decent. I would like to use Genetics as a way to support my view. Genetic mutations are more often than not negative impacts. I can name several genetic mutations that are not supportive of evolutionary theory. Sickle cell anemia, Cystic fibrosis mutation Cholesterol-related mutations. Can my opponent name several positive genetic mutations with in humans. Remember Evolution would have less complex life forms going to more complex life forms. Considering the massive amounts of life we have on Earth we should have at least a few higher life formed animals getting better.

2.SOCIAL
Despite the outcome of the scientific debate one must ask what are the social implications of evolutionary theory. Intelligent Design, God, Aliens, and other Creation Theories have with out a doubt a better outcome socially, as most demand accountability for actions to fellow man. Evolutionary Theory has impacted society negatively, not true for other "scientific discoveries". Even Darwins first influential book was titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" . Notice the favored race? If you bring evolutionary theory to the logical conclusion one must concede 1.Some men are more evolved than others. 2. Certain rights and responsibilities are given the more evolved, naturally speaking.
Hitler used evolutionary theory to commit genocide. Intelligent men could justify throwing a jewish baby in an oven, why? Because they thought of it as nothing more than a monkey. If evolutionary theory is correct what argument will you give why he was wrong. Is he not just like any other intelligent animal that exercises his rule over who he wishes? Shall we exercise our morals on the animals? If evolution is correct what basis do we have for morals?
Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and modern racism is influenced heavily from evolutionary theory.

3.CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
A)Ancient Documents and Civilizations
Evolution fails to explain the lack of written human history or evidence of large civilizations beyond 10,000 years ago. Evolution takes a very long time to occur, one would assume that modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact scientist who subscribe to evolution believe we came around approximately 400,000 years ago. Thats a long time why don't we have more historical proofs of this? Remember these are normal humans like you and me, I'd like to think we are a little more intelligent than just to sit around for 390,000 years with out any population increases or large civilizations until about 10,000 years ago. What about the species that we came from, were they that much stupider than us they didn't populate and have large civilizations?
B)Extinction
The inevitable end to species is death, not evolution. The Whales, Elephants, Tigers, Dolphins, will not evolve they will go extinct. This is observable with past animals. Thousands of animals have gone extinct that once roamed this Earth.
Biowza

Con

Well first let me go through what makes your very contention ludicrous. First off, you cannot seriously expect to show that a legitimate scientific theory is a 'farce' simply by copy-pasting creationist propaganda on a website. No, the way to challenge a scientific idea, is to contest it in the scientific arena. This creates progress, new thinking, and new ideas. All scientific theories have been subjected to the same harsh criticism, they've all been tested, reviewed, poked, prodded, and reviewed another dozen times. Trying to show that evolutionary theory is a 'farce' in an 8,000 character limit is a joke, its akin to trying to disprove special relativity on a hotel napkin. Secondly, the statement 'Macroevolution is what is being contested not microevolution' has essentially won me the debate right there. From a scientific standpoint, there actually is no difference between the two. The distinctions are used in the scientific community arbitrarily. Macroevolution IS microevolution, the only difference is the time scale. To say that you don't accept macroevolution and yet to accept microevolution is like saying you accept that you can walk to the kitchen but it would be scientifically impossible for you to walk to the corner store.

Hence, your definition of evolutionary theory is wrong, but anyway I won't harp on it, lest people think I'm dodging your points. Just for those who are judging, please note the inaccuracy of the definition.

SCIENCE
No tree over the age of 5,000 you say? Well I doubt you are familiar with the term 'clonal colonies' but they are essentially families of trees with the same roots, they are genetically identical and live in the same area, while no 'clone' is over the age of 5,000 there are many clonal colonies which are estimated to be 80,000-100,000 years old. (http://www.nps.gov...)

Well I am a bit dumbfounded by your criticism of radiometric dating, but allow me to enlighten you. It is based off basic principles of matter, the probability per unit time that a certain particle can tunnel out of the nucleus of an atom. The nucleus is not affected to large scale changes of pressure and temperature, and hence it can be assumed that the rate of change is constant. I doubt you understand the words you are using, because your arguments make no sense and are essentially saying the same thing. In regards to the 'closed system' I've pretty much already mentioned that, it is based off quantum mechanics and the fundamental properties of matter, aside from special cases, the rate of decay can be assumed to be constant with an exponential dependence on time. The fact that undesirables such as fractionation may occur does nothing to the legitimacy of the dating technique. Such errors are generally grossly over or under what is expected, and can therefore be clearly identified.

I'm leaving the 'Common Decent' part, because it isn't an argument.

*Sigh* once again I am doubting that you know the meaning of the words you are using. 'Mutation' in the scientic sense is NOT only negative. Mutations create change in the gene pool, for better OR for worse, with the detrimental mutations generally being removed over the long term by natural selection. I have no idea why you brought up those diseases as a case against evolution, I seriously don't. Usually i can at least see some sort of connection between that and an argument against evolution, but here I honestly have no idea. If you could explain to me how these things have anything to do with what we are talking about, I'd be appreciative. You want me to name some positive genetic mutations for humans? What about our evolution from the primate? The fact that we are (well, mostly) intelligent? These are the results of mutations within our gene pool. And no, once again evolution is does not mean that less complex life forms evolve into more complex life forms, it is just that they become better suited to their environment.

SOCIAL
Well since when have allowed the social implications of a scientific discovery override the veracity of that discovery? Well, never. I'll address your points later, but first let me point out to the voting audience that talking about the social implications of a theory does nothing to contribute to the idea that it is a 'farce'. The science behind an idea is totally independent on what humans do with it. Take Einstein and the mass-energy equivalence. This was directly used in the creation of the atomic bomb, which killed hundreds of thousands of people and has forever de-stabilised the world. Does this make Einstein wrong? Is E=mc^2 a 'farce' because of the way people used it?

Take a second look at your own quote. It says 'favoured RACES'. This has nothing to do black, white, asian, or anything else. It is simply a re-wording of natural selection. You are wrong on so many counts here that I am finding it hard to actually keep up. No, Hitler did not use evolution to commit genocide, because evolution has nothing to say on the matter, and nothing to say about the extermination of jews or anything else. In scientific terms and the way that Darwin was using, humans are one race. 'The struggle for life' strongly hints that he was talking about natural selection and races being species. Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and modern racism are influenced by evolutionary theory to the same extent that killing your child is influenced by the bible ("For God commanded, saying, honour thy father and mother: and, he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." -Matthew 15:4)

Oh wait, bad example.

I'm sorry but this last passage of yours I found hilarious. I actually showed my friend this when he came over the other day and he couldn't contain himself. I don't know where to start...

-No, humans did not exist in our present form 400,000 years ago and evolutionary theory makes no such claim.
-Yes, the species we came from were not as intelligent.
-The species we came from didn't populate like humans because they did not live in houses, have medicine, and technology.

As for the very last bit, once again I am at a loss for words. I honestly don't know what you're talking about and why this has anything to do with evolution.
----------------------
MY CASE

My case is simple, if my opponent wishes to attempt to scientifically show that evolution is a 'farce' then he can go for it. But, he's going to have to show why all these branches of knowledge which rely on evolution are better explained by his hypothesis (whatever that may be).

abiogenesis - adaptation - adaptive radiation - allele - allele frequency - allopatric speciation - altruism - anagenesis - Archaeopteryx - aquatic adaptation - artificial selection - atavism - Brassica oleracea - Cambrian explosion - catagenesis - gene-centered view of evolution - cephalization - Chi square test - chronobiology - chronospecies - clade - cladistics - Climatic adaptation - coalescent theory - co-evolution - Co-operation (evolution) - coefficient of relationship - common descent - convergent evolution - creation-evolution controversy - cultivar - ecological genetics - ecological selection - endosymbiosis - error threshold (evolution) - evidence of evolution - evolution - evolutionary arms race - evolution of cetaceans - evolution of complexity - evolution of the horse - evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - evolution of mammals - evolution of sex - evolution of sirenians - evolution of the eye - evolutionary developmental biology - evolutionary neuroscience - evolutionary psychology - evolutionary radiation - evolutionary stable strategy - evolutionary tree - experimental evolution - exaptation - extinction - gene - gene-centric view of evolution - gene duplication - gene flow - gene pool - genetic drift - genetic recombination - genetic variation - genotype - genotype-environment correlation

Alas, I have run out of characters, and I was only up to G.
Debate Round No. 1
jmlandf

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for debating me. He/She has started numerous debates with Intelligent Design as the topic. I assume my opponent enjoys debates of religious, scientific and social complexity.

SCIENCE
My very simple point, scientifically speaking, is the foundations of evolutionary theory hinges on approaches which are debatable. Evolutionary theory requires two debatable things.
1. A very old Earth, over millions of years.
2. Simple life forms changing into more complex life forms.
They are not debatable because of God or religion. They are intellectually and scientifically debatable. I understand that many of the individuals debating the accuracy of many of the scientific approaches are Christians or Creationist, however should we discredit their research because of this? Lets attack the scientific validity rather than the scientist beliefs. This is why Evolutionary Theory is a mockery or farce; I have given my opponent scientific facts that support possible problems with Evolutionary Theory. My opponents reply is that "I don't know the meaning of the words I am using" and that "I copied and pasted from a creation site", which I have not. Further my opponent has failed to demonstrate why it would be bad to copy and paste information from a creation site.
Micro and Macro are entirely different and my opponents analogy of micro evolution and macro evolution is incorrect.
http://www.exchangedlife.com...
http://www.yourdictionary.com...
http://www.yourdictionary.com...

A) The age of the Earth
No intelligent person would or can argue against tree ring dating. Colony trees can not be dated with tree ring dating. Colony trees are dated with radiometric dating techniques. No tree has been dated over 5000 years old with tree ring dating. You must concede that no tree, using tree ring dating, has been found over 5000 years old. As I said prior I find it a laughable coincidence that this very indisputable dating technique can not offer any evidence of a Earth over 10,000 years old. You can not rebuttal with colony trees because radiometric dating is in dispute and unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The fact is Radiometric dating is in dispute for sound reasons. Radiometric dating is only reliable for maximum ages, not minimum ages. Here are two references that support problems with radiometric dating. One is a secular wikipedia reference and one is a study done by several PHD scientist. Note: the wikipedia reference supports some old radiometric dating techniques, however the other link addresses each of them.
http://www.icr.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I noticed my opponent did not address my Geological Column and Index Fossils section.

C)Genetics
Positive genetic mutations are necessary to support Evolution. Its obvious that most mutations are not good. This is why I have asked my opponent to name a positive genetic mutation. My opponent suggest primates have evolved into humans, but this doesn't make since. We see constant negative mutations. It is more plausible to accept that primates came from humans. Imagine mentally retarded humans being cast from the tribe of "normal" humans. Then the mentally retarded humans cast yet another less intelligent mutation out of the tribe until finally you arrive at a primate. Of course this doesn't make since either because if that is the way evolution occurs then everything keeps getting less complex. Can my opponent name any positive mutations that have been observed?

SOCIAL
My opponent makes a good case that we should not blame Einstein for a discovery that lead to the creation of nuclear bombs. This is true, we should not blame Einstein for his scientific discovery. Evolution is entirely different however. No one ever used Einstein's, Newton's, or any other practical scientific discovery to support racism, but evolution is racism. Evolution is a religion and requires one to look at the natural causation of existence with-out a God. This would be fine but it is not scientifically supported and has enormous social implications. It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion.

Michael Ruse says "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Reference; Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

My opponent says Hitler was not influenced by Evolution, this is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.straight-talk.net...

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be."

Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival. My opponent ignores this quote from Darwin's Book
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Reference Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Evolution suggest that humans evolved 200,000 to 400,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Definition of Abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
MY REBUTTAL
Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain (Shapiro, 1986). The first links -- actually the first hundreds of thousands or more links that are required to produce life -- still are missing (Behe, 1996, pp. 154-156)
Biowza

Con

Once again, and all modern science agrees with me, there is no meaningful difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro evolution on a larger timescale (think: Big changes [macro] are nothing but lots of small changes [micro]). The only people who disagree are creationists who lack knowledge of even the most rudimentary scientific concepts. Giving me definitions from a website does nothing, because I have already said that they are used arbitrarily, which isn't to mean that the definitions are pointless, they are used for clarity when defining different aspects of evolutionary theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Ok, the thing about trees and your perfect 'ring dating' technique is that the trees' rings decay after an extended period of time, making ring dating useless for longer periods of time. Also there are many species of ant that get inside trees and ruin the ring structure, making it difficult to get an accurate reading for old trees. Am I saying ring dating techniques are unreliable and useless? No. I'm just saying it is a pointless ploy on your part to try and get me to get a tree that has been ring-dated to be tens-of-thousands of years old. Radiometric dating is perfectly legitimate and you've presented nothing to suggest otherwise.

So on to radiometric dating which you still insist is 'in dispute for sound reasons' despite my thorough rebuttal on all of your points. You haven't even responded to my points regarding constant decay, and closed system, rather, you have decided to totally ignore them and just post a pointless link by a fundamentalist christian, which just repeats everything you have already said and I have addressed. I haven't ignored your geological column and Index Fossils section, they are related to radiometric dating, which I have already addressed. I have answered your attacks against radiometric dating, and re-showing me your exact points in a 600 page report that someone else wrote doesn't constitute a rebuttal to MY points, it just makes me repeat myself, which I don't like doing. Either make your own points or don't, but don't claim to rebut me by just using someone else's arguments, while I have no problem addressing that guy's points, I'm not debating him I am debating you.

Now I'm going to throw you a curve ball in regards to your young-earth idea. The age of the universe. The commonly accepted age of the universe is ~13.7 billion years. How do we know this? One way is to observe the distance that light travels in a year (a light year), and calculate how many light years certain things in the universe (such as stars) are away from us. Take for instance the closest star to us (besides our sun), Proxima Centauri. It is about 4 light years away, this means that it would take four years travelling at the speed of light (~300*10^6 m/s) to get there. Now look, you get stars that are 10 billion light years away, meaning that our universe is AT LEAST that old. I realise you are talking about the age of the earth and not the universe, so this is really more of an aside note but you have to ask yourself, what sort of God lies in wait for at least 13,699,990,000 years doing NOTHING before deciding to create the earth. Those judging don't need to take into account this paragraph and my opponent shouldn't feel compelled to answer it, as it has little to do with evolution.

Now on to genetics. First off 'It doesn't make since (sense?)' is not an argument against humans evolving from primates, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. Speaking of not understanding, I am befuddled at your suggestion that somehow primates evolved from retarded humans but I think you are as well. The quest you are thrusting upon me to find a 'positive mutation' shows a distinct gap in your scientific knowledge. Mutations in a scientific sense are BY DEFINITION both detrimental and beneficial to an organism. It is the mechanism upon which natural selection acts. Mutations produce things such as different colours in flowers, different coloured butterflies, birds, cats, dogs...etc. If a mutation proves to aid the survival of an organism, it will reproduce itself to the point that it becomes dominant in the species. This is essentially the basis of natural selection and evolution.

Now pretty much all of what I have mentioned before has been observed in a lab, mutations are clearly seen in the lab and in the field. From observing insects growing resistant to pesticides, to microscopic observations concerning chromosomes and their mutation. On all levels, positive mutations (although I cringe at the term) has been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Once again I have to sigh at your 'social' section. I agree that Einstein's mass energy equivalence and evolution are entirely different cases. The atomic bomb resulted in the DIRECT and CORRECT interpretation of a theory, while evolution was INDIRECTLY and INCORRECTLY interpreted by Adolf Hitler. You really cannot compare the two. It is like saying that Newton's second law (F=ma) directly inspired all bombs in the world or that the periodic table directly inspired the creators of the gas chambers to use hydrogen cyanide at Auschwitz. You can dig up all the quotes you want about supposed racism but at the end of the day, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The social implications of a theory has NO influence on whether the theory holds true or not. None at all.

Think if suddenly it was discovered without a doubt that the acceptance of the Bernoulli equation was directly correlated to raping small children in bath tubs. Does this mean that Bernoulli's equation is false? Is the mass flow rate at two points in a fluid flow not constant because of someone's social actions? No, and double no. It has no bearing at all.

This isn't even to say that evolution CAUSES racism, it is clear it doesn't. Nearly all of the scientific community accepts it, and yet what percentage of scientists make up the prison population? I don't have the figures but its safe to assume it is very low. Even if it was proved, it would be a total non-issue in relation to the veracity of evolutionary theory.

Talking of 'modern humans' I thought this was assumed knowledge but it is clear that 'modern' humans of 200,000 years ago were much different to the humans of today. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that these people were 'modern' in the sense that you mean, ie with the ability to communicate and record history. It wasn't until 50,000-75,000 years ago that we actually started seeing the very basics of 'modern' human activity. I'm still a bit confused as to how this is evidence against evolution.

Ok, so you've defined abiogenisis, the first thing on my list. You're still missing my point totally, explain to me WHY your hypothesis (whatever that is) explains my list better than evolutionary theory. This is the process of the scientific method, you want to meddle in the world of science? Go for it, but be prepared to show why the evidence is better explained by your hypothesis, it isn't a one way road, if you're serious about this then go about it scientifically. I suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now you want to talk about 'missing links'? Does your evidence just consist of 12 and 22 year old sources? I can only assume you're talking about the 'tree of life' which is, of course a work in progress. But here's some reading material.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.tellapallet.com... (picture)

You've still not even come close to answering my points regarding why your explanation (whatever that is) explains the phenomena better than evolutionary theory. As such, my points remain.
Debate Round No. 2
jmlandf

Pro

PRO

SOCIAL
There is no denial that Evolutionary Theory has social implications which require the ethical and skeptical review of its scientific foundations, this is unlike any other scientific theory. With out reasonable doubt Evolutionary Theory has influenced several racial political and personal views. You can not deny the social implications of the Theory. While as racial views have existed prior to the Theory, it certainly lends credit to those views rather than combating them. This is to be expected from a Theory that suggest mankind is an evolved animal sharing common ancestors with primates. The lack of caution and skepticism of this Theory is unethical on the part of many in the scientific community. Some in the scientific community certainly delight in Evolutionary Theory because it combats opposing religious views, all the while there personal religious view is that of atheism; this is bias. Regardless of religion mankind should be adamantly against Evolutionary Theory and its ugly racist propaganda. As evidence of the unethical behavior of the scientific community simply look at my opponents arguments against the social implications. He is in blatant denial of the social implications. My opponent at first suggested Darwin "race" had nothing to do with "race" and that Hitler had no influence from Evolutionary Theory. He later admits Hitler had indirect and incorrect interpretation of the Theory but remains silent on Darwin, Huxley, and others views. This is the Farce of Evolution. A correct interpretation of Evolutionary Theory says some Races are more evolved than other Races, if you subscribe to this you are a racist wither you choose to racial cleanse or not. My contention that Evolution Theory is Racism stands thus Evolution is a Farce.

SCIENCE
In an attempt to answer the most important question for mankind; Evolution speaks up but only as Science's premature ejaculate, figuratively speaking of course. Science is certainly capable of telling us more of our past, but we don't have enough information to CONCLUSIVELY support Evolutionary Theory. It is sold as fact, when it is still a Theory with a tarnished unscientific and racist not so distant past. I am extremely skeptical of any "new" evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory. Why? you ask. because nearly every scientific model supporting Evolutionary Theory, in the not so distant past, has been proved a fraud or wrongly interpreted. In fact my opponents friend Carl Sagan (your profile pic) even believed foolish Unscientific beliefs masquerading as science. (By the way many of the Scientist who wrote the evidence against Radiometric Dating personally knew Carl Sagan, the link was referenced in this debate. All of them where just as educated as Carl Sagan.)

Carl Sagan propagated the already dead wrong recapitulation theory started by Ernst Haeckel. Ernst Haeckel was a fraud but its still taught in schools and apparently supported by Carl Sagan? take a look at the links.
http://www.2think.org...
http://laelaps.wordpress.com...

Stephen Jay Gould: "... it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it, had been abandoned by science." (Ontogeny and phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p1)

Incorrect Horse Evolution

...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (Fossil Horses, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27 )

George Gaylord Simpson, world's foremost evolutionary palaeontologist said, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." (George G. Simpson, Life Of The Past, p.119)

When I was in high school we had to cross out about half of the pages in the Evolution section because they were simply wrong this included Ernst Haeckel and fossil record of horses. I repeatedly read articles in reputable magazines such as Nat. Geo. that jump to conclusions about fossil's then later the stance is changed but no correction is ever published. While showing you a few of the frauds and wrongly interpreted data of evolutionary theory doesn't disprove anything it does support a notion that we should be more skeptical of evidences for Evolutionary Theory. No other scientific theory has offered the world more frauds than Evolutionary Theory and I can't blame anyone for being skeptical of new "discoveries" given the deceptive past of Evolutionary Theory.

Rebuttal and "Re-wording of my opponents arguments"

Once again, and all modern science agrees with me, there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is not just micro evolution on a larger timescale (think: Impossible Changes [macro] are not lots of small changes [micro]). The only people who disagree are atheist who lack knowledge of even the most rudimentary scientific concepts.

I fully understand your argument of micro-macro. You believe micro over long periods of time causes macro. I disagree, which is the point of this debate. We observe changes with in species and kind. We have not and will not observe changes from one kind to another. Your belief that micro leads to macro is not observable and never will be it is simply wishful thinking on your part and much of the scientific community.

The debate asks the question "Is Evolution a Farce?" NOT what my theory is. I don't need to present an alternative theory.

I enjoyed your light year explanation. I would like to say there is heated debate in the scientific community about light. Can it change speed? Yes some forms of light can go faster and slower sometimes but we don't know as much as we would like. There is also evidence that light may have moved much faster around the Big Bang than what it moves at now. I would hold that all the current theories of light and its speed are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries.
Biowza

Con

I get the feeling that my opponent is just simply ignoring my points about the social implications and just plowing on with his own failed rhetoric. Having said that, I won't be picking apart this specific argument because it doesn't differ at all from the previous arguments my opponent has made in relation to the social implications of evolutionary theory. This leaves me no choice but to repeat myself, which I do not like doing, but for the sake of the voting audience, I will break it down in easy-to-read points (If I'm not mistaken, this is the final round).

-In regards to there not being any other theory that has had social implications comparable to that of evolutionary theory, I can do not much but sigh. My opponent fails to realise that every bomb, every gun, and countless other deadly weapons are the sole product of applications of varying scientific theories and principles. The example I have presented is the use of Albert Einstein's mass-energy equivalence in the making of the atomic bomb which killed over 200,000 people. However this is not to say that this is the only example of terrible social implications arising from a scientific theory. I ask the voting audience to just think about the countless deaths that arose from the creation of gunpowder, radar technologies, and electric detonation charges to name just a few.

-A point that my opponent has rather impressively ignored is the fact that the social implications of a theory DO NOT have any bearing on the veracity of that theory. It is funny that he even tried to bring this up when trying to show that 'evolutionary theory is a farce'. Does the fact that Einstein's famous equation was used to kill 200,000 people make the equation any less true? Do theories simply do not exist when they have negative social implications? This is simply ludicrous. Once again, I'm not even conceding that accepting evolution CAUSES people to kill one another. Hitler spouting Eugenics as justification for his crimes doesn't mean he has interpreted correctly at all, or even that evolution tells people to kill and hate one another. Honestly, I'd go deeper into this if I felt that it deserved it, but I get the feeling I'm going to need these 8,000 characters.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan

I feel this responds very well to my opponent's claim that evolution is based of flawed ideas. You see, the thing about the scientific community is that it is constantly challenging and reviewing itself. The fact that something is discovered to be wrong is not a sign of weakness, rather, it is a good thing, because it makes the theory stronger. Of course fatal flaws in theories are generally quickly noted and the idea is discarded, such as with Cold Fusion in the 1990's. Your example of orthogenisis being flawed is nearly 100 years old, it was first noted by Darwin and was recorded in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (http://wapedia.mobi...). Modern evolutionary theory has adapted to the challenges brought about by the falsification of orthogenisis (which was actually falsified by another scientist, not some creationist by the way) and as such it has come up with new and better explanations for the phenomena observed by orthogenisis. This is how the scientific community operates.

It is being confirmed what I suspected in that my opponent lacks scientific experience, people in science are never considered 'frauds' if their hypothesis is faulty. No, the only 'frauds' are the people like creationists who refuse to try to prove their idea in the scientific arena. I seriously doubt your story that the evolution textbooks that you had at school contained pages that talked about orthogenisis, seeing as it has been knowledge in the scientific arena that this idea has been faulty, and the latest that people stayed true to this hypothesis was 1950 (http://wapedia.mobi...). On a similar line, the hypothesis of Ernst Haekel being falsified (actually, his entire hypothesis wasn't falsified, just the strict literal interpretation) really has nothing to do with evolution being wrong. The very fact that this aspect was caught and addressed really is a testament to evolutionary theory and even more so to the work of Charles Darwin, which has withstood the strict scrutiny of the scientific community for the better part of 150 years. You have to understand that science isn't one guy sitting in a room deciding what goes into textbooks, it literally takes hundreds of thousands of people doing individual studies and reaching a consensus.

You do not actually 'fully understand' my argument. My whole point is that the term 'micro evolution' and 'macro evolution' are used arbitrarily in a scientific sense. In fact, it isn't really a matter of debate, there really is no 'belief' in regards to the fact that macro evolution is nothing but many steps of micro evolution because both terms were coined by scientists and the terms are used only for simplicity. Your claim of accepting micro but not macro evolution is a logical fallacy.

Contrary to my opponent's guess, the scientific community has pretty much come to a consensus on the speed of light in a vacuum. There certainly is not a 'heated debate' about its speed. This is not however to say that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe, for instance the speed of light on earth is slower than in the vacuum of space however the speeds used for calculations of distance is the speed of light in a vacuum which is commonly accepted to be 299,792,458 m/s. I hope my opponent realises that for his 10,000 year old universe idea to be even slightly feasible, it is required that we not only have the wrong speed of light, but we are many, many, many orders of magnitude off. I realise this is the end of the debate but I'd like to see evidence of this 'heated debate'.

My opponent states how this isn't a debate about whether his idea explains phenomena better than evolutionary theory, however he is mistaken. It was said in the beginning that this debate was to be conducted scientifically, that is, religious arguments are not to be used for either party. Regrettably, I have not totally gone along with this, however I stated that my part about the speed of light need not be considered by the judging audience. If this debate was to be conducted using scientific arguments then it is required that we at the very least, coincide with the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way I see it, my job as CON is to defend scientifically the arguments against evolutionary theory presented by my opponent. My opponents task, if we are to do this debate in accordance to science is to not only present arguments that I cannot answer sufficiently (or, that evolutionary theory has no answer for) but also to present his own theory which is capable of answering the phenomena observed better than evolutionary theory. This is how a scientific debate is conducted, and my opponent has failed.

Why you should vote CON
- My opponent has no answer for my rebuttals on radiometric dating, his 'tree' example, the age of the earth, mutations, human evidence of evolution, and index fossils. If you would note his final round, he makes no mention of any of this.
- Social implications of a theory have no bearing on its veracity.
- My points that my opponent should answer (abiogenisis...etc) are still standing and unaddressed.

As I had noticed, one cannot falsify a legitimate theory through an internet site. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Humans live a better life when they use their science to advance society, religions are zits and a hemorroids all over advancing mankind :)
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Oh wait. Nevermind that comment.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Who's Dereck?
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
I believe in global warming, just not that we are the cause of it. I'm not going to debate you Derek.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
"Labrat no beweave gobul worming?"
I stand corrected.
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
Wat.

Labrat no beweave gobul worming?
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
A pretty good definition.
The OED gives it as: "Credulity regarding the supernatural; belief in the unknown; ..."
In essence, exactly the opposite to science.

So how can it be LabRat, that you don't agree as who is superstitious?
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
lol, Ive debated Derek on global warming before, he is obviously far more experienced in the subject, i wouldn't do it anytime soon, or any body else for that matter, I'm starting a debate on gun rights (pro) though, if anyone is willing to debate me on that.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Cue John, Rezz, Ragnar, and others.

Are you ready for your beating Labrat?
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
A belief in something not justified by reason or evidence.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TrevorQuamily 7 years ago
TrevorQuamily
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 7 years ago
Mlorg
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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 
Vote Placed by corcor27 7 years ago
corcor27
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by serp777 7 years ago
serp777
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
jmlandfBiowzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bluefreedom23 8 years ago
bluefreedom23
jmlandfBiowzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
jmlandfBiowzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
jmlandfBiowzaTied
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