The Instigator
yoda
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Evolution True?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,533 times Debate No: 18517
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

yoda

Con

Round 1 is acceptance and any additional rules you would like to add.
Rule 1: If the challenger or the instigator argues on anything but evolution he forfeits

Definitions
Evolution: Darwin's original theory of evolution
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

Hello my friend, this is my first debate on this site. I accept your rules and definitions, and I am arguing the position that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
Debate Round No. 1
yoda

Con

In this part of my argument I will be listing two reasons why evolution can't possibly be true. They are as follows:
Reason 1: Where's all the People?
Reason 2: Genetically evolution isn't Possible.

Reason 1

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. [1]

Reason 2

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]

1. thegoodreporters.blogspot.com/2007/.../evolution-isnt-even-logical.h...
2.Exploring God's Creation with Biology 2nd addition
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

==Rebuttal 1==

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."[1] The human carrying capacity of the Earth, in fact, is under much debate, but is no where near the population estimate you have produced,[2] 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.[3] Hunger and thirst actually kills more people than AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined.[4] To sum up my response, people die, and you should probably take that into account.

==Rebuttal 2==

Just as mutations can change or subtract information, mutations can add information. This has been observed several times.[5] 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.[6] Mutations are mutations.

==Sources==
1. http://www.fws.gov...
2. Cohen, Joel. How many people can the earth support? p. 212
3. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca...
4. http://www.wfp.org...
5. http://www.talkorigins.org...
6. http://www.pnas.org...
Debate Round No. 2
yoda

Con

What you said about the population growth is correct. Not every couple produces two children and disease, warfare, etc. haven't been factored in. However even with those factored in it wouldn't't have killed that many people.

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.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

==Rebuttal 1==

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,[1] and that happened just under a century ago. Deaths don't just kill the humans -- they also prevent descendants from that human.

==Rebuttal 2==

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."[2] Radiation does mutate, but not all mutations are for the worse.

==Sources==

1. http://www.jewishideas.org...
2. http://www.cod.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
yoda

Con

Definitions

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.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

Thank you for a quick response but you are entering the inescapable realm of contradiction. My friend, your first actual argument included the phrases "genetically possible" and "genetic code." Darwin's "original theory of evolution" did not include genetics or DNA, because they hadn't been discovered yet.[1]

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.[2]

Basically, I have not offered a rebuttal because your two arguments are totally irrelevant.

==Sources==
1. http://www.nuuf.org...
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 4
yoda

Con

yoda forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Pro

Okay, then. Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by yoda 5 years ago
yoda
Sorry this is the first time that I have been able to get on since Friday.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
***also, is it just me, or has there been a hella lot of Christians join the site lately
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
both sides have some pretty valid arguments, but seeing as how they are debating the original theory of Darwin's evolution, there is a lot of room for the con side to pull out a few arguments that I am choosing to be vague about... but it could ruin pro. :p

also, iit just me, or has there been a hella lot of christians join the site latley
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I disagree, but there's no reason to debate in the comment section of a debate.
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105
it's perdy easy to debate both sides of this issue if you know what your talking about...
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I'm not quite sure who you are referring to, but I think Creationists are relatively easy to debate.
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105
very very true hardly any clash...
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
So much fail...
No votes have been placed for this debate.