Is Evolution True?
Debate Rounds (5)
Rule 1: If the challenger or the instigator argues on anything but evolution he forfeits
Evolution: Darwin's original theory of evolution
Reason 1: Where's all the People?
Reason 2: Genetically evolution isn't Possible.
My first reason that I will use to disprove evolution is that the population growth would be massive. According to many evolutionist humans set foot on the Earth roughly 2 million years ago. Well say there are 2 people then and after so many years they reproduce and there are 4 people. So that happens for a long time and we reach 2011. Following that principle the world's population would be 1 times 10 to the 26,999 power. Where did all the people go? No bones no records no nothing. 
Evolution isn't genetically possible. This is because it is impossible for evolution to occur a creature would have to add information to its genetic code. Insects can become immune to our pesticides because they are just changing information inside their code which is possible. 
2.Exploring God's Creation with Biology 2nd addition
I first would like to argue that your source, "The Good Reporters" blog, is an unreliable source when they calculate population, and I would like to see a more reputable source for these numbers.
Second, this argument is illogical even assuming your numbers are correct. First, not every couple produces two children, as there are external factors that affect population growth. For example, the carrying capacity of an environment is "a population concept with the underlying theme of numbers of animals supported by some unit of area." The human carrying capacity of the Earth, in fact, is under much debate, but is no where near the population estimate you have produced, so even if you were correct in your population estimate, there is no way the Earth could support that large amount.
There are many factors that affect population growth. For instance, disease, miscarriage, lack of food, clothing, water, shelter, and other factors all slow, stop, and sometimes even lessen, human population. This is actually the theory behind natural selection; to overcome these factors, animal variations adapt to the ever-changing environment. In a perfect world, your numbers may add up, but in a world where life is a fragile and often easily-destroyed thing, vast numbers of humans can be wiped out by one epidemic. The AIDS pandemic has already killed an estimated 25 million people. Hunger and thirst actually kills more people than AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined. To sum up my response, people die, and you should probably take that into account.
Just as mutations can change or subtract information, mutations can add information. This has been observed several times. In fact, in one observation by biology professors at the University of Illinois, genes can even be duplicated and then used to fit a certain function. Mutations are mutations.
2. Cohen, Joel. How many people can the earth support? p. 212
Now about my point relating to mutation, stop watching X-Men, mutations don't add genetic information to the genetic code whatsoever. Mutations only damage an organism.
What happens when someone stands in front of a extremely radio active source? They die or become sick from the radiation correct? This is because their cells were all killed or mutated. So mutated cells fight against the body. As the damage your body your immune system crushes the cell stopping all damage the cells rampage.
What I said about population growth is correct, but it isn't correct? You must have misunderstood my argument. If diseases wipe out a large portion of a population, not only does that lessen the current population, but it also lessens the population growth because the dead humans can no longer produce children. Here's an example, we'll start off with two parents like you said. Those two parents produce two children, who in turn have the capability to produce two children. If they are left untouched they will produce four children. However, if one child dies, they will only produce two, from the one living child, which will seriously slow population growth. And if the disease also strikes on the second child, there will be no children produced. For instance, not only did 6 million Jews die in the Holocaust, but it also prevented continual growth of the Jewish population, as there would be 32 million Jews alive today, and that happened just under a century ago. Deaths don't just kill the humans -- they also prevent descendants from that human.
It seems to me that you are the one getting your facts from films and popular culture. I cited a valid, scientific source that shows information can be added. I would like to see a valid, reputable, and scientific source that backs up your claim that genes cannot add information. Mutations can also be beneficial to humans, and I quote: "whether a mutation is harmful or not is sometimes situational — a change which is harmful in some situations may actually be beneficial in others." Radiation does mutate, but not all mutations are for the worse.
Evolution - Darwin's original theory of evolution
Micro evolution - a change within a species
Macro evolution - a species changing to another species
In con's debates he has used mutations to strengthen his arguments. This would be fine if I hadn't clearly defined evolution as Darwin's original theory not Neo-Darwinism that came later.
Reasons Darwin's evolution can't be true
1. Genetically it isn't possible
2. No "missing links"
3. No observation no science
When a dog changes to a horse that is macro evolution.
When a bacteria becomes immune to a medicine or an insect becomes immune to an insecticide. Example of micro evolution.
Sorry but I don't have time to research and find sources or a stronger argument.
You have used evidence outside your own definition to strengthen your argument, and after a rebuttal, you accuse me of debating outside the argument. Your micro and macro evolution definitions are also irrelevant, because both of the concepts appeared after Darwin's original theory.
Basically, I have not offered a rebuttal because your two arguments are totally irrelevant.
yoda forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.