The Instigator
Ayden_Linden
Pro (for)
The Contender
brontoraptor
Con (against)

Is the Theory of Evolution true and accurate?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Ayden_Linden has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 246 times Debate No: 94098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Ayden_Linden

Pro

Hello there, i am here to discuss why Evolution, n my opinion, cannot be disproven and is simply scientific fact, there are no holes that can be poked into the Theory of Evolution that will disprove it because as i said before, it is, in my opinion, un-falsifiable.

However if you do come forward with arguments that cannot be refuted i would be more then happy to hear them, your Religious background (or lack there of) Does not matter to me, at least as far as prejudice is concerned and i would love to hear your opinions!

Please state in the first round that you accept and your opening point on the matter, please try to be respectful, as this is simply a discussion on one anothers beleifs, thank you, i look forward to your reply
brontoraptor

Con

I was raised Muslim, became an apostate, held to Agnosticism for about 7 years, then became a Christian.

I believe in the variation of species, but think Darwinian evolution is a pipedream.

Good luck Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Ayden_Linden

Pro

Thank you for accepting my invitation, now if i may, i would like you to answer me a question:

Please could you explain to me how the Theory of Evolution is a 'pipe-dream' and please could you express why you do not accept the theory as fact?

Thank you i look forward to hearing from you soon
brontoraptor

Con

The vast majority of variants of a given species fail to propagate. There are many more ways to be a loser in the game of life than to be a success. Surely that is true of life as a whole. Of all the imaginable possible histories of life, what is the likelihood that it would persist for billions of years, long enough to produce lizards, chimps and human beings?

In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for darwinism is that even this original cell is a work of labrynth-like complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that "even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions."

*

If one looks at an illustration of a creature, then an intermediary, another intermediary, and on and on, it is logical as a visible progression, but...

1)The illustrations and the actual finds don't match up. Example: flippers being assumed on intermediaries of "whale evolution".

2)This turns a blind eye to the proccess that would have to take place to get organs, working internal systems, eyes, male and females of same species in real time together with working reproductive systems completely different from one another, a brain, consciousness, systems in place for hearing, breathing, seeing, mating, feeling, etc, the first theoretical "self replicating molecule, etc. Well how did that happen? Answer? Who the hell knows?

*

Pakicetus the fraud of "whsle evolution-

As seems to be typical story-telling, the storytelling that occurred with Pakicetus, involving Dr Philip Gingerich is sad and true about paleantology. It's about money, fame and prestiege. An incomplete skull fossil was imagined to be that of a whalelike creature, displayedas an artist"s impression on the cover of the prestigious journal, Science, in 1983. Some years later the rest of Pakicetus was found, published in 2001, and it proved to be nothing like a whale. Contraryto what Dr Gingerich had illustratef, there was no blowhole, there were no flippers (only hooves), and there was no whale neck(just a neck typical for land mammals). Despite this, Dr. Werner reveals that the American Museum of Natural History in New Yorkand the Natural History Museum in London have not stopped using the fraudulantly reconstructed skull that shows a blowhole.

In a National Geographic documentary in 2009, Dr Gingerich still claimed that Pakicetus should be classed with whales, based on its ear bone. Really? But the ear bone is not like a whale, which has a fingerlike projection, but is platelike, like the fossils of land animals known as artiodactyls. In other words, it's bs.

And if we are to believe Gingerich in full, we are to believe there were once literal "walking whales"(and flying pigs), and that 80,000 pound whales evolved from small hooved hyenas...

*

And besides, we are supposed to ignore the most obvious detractor of darwinism: creatures hundreds of millions of years old in perfect preserved condition trapped in amber that look exactly like they look today.

*

Because of the complexity of it all , probability issues, and a lack of evidence, Richard Dawkins, atheist biologist in an interview with Ben Stein, began proposing that aliens may have seeded the Earth, and even gave into the concept that if one looks at biology you might see evidence of some kind of designer. And in another interview he pondered the idea that our reality may be a simulation. Why? Because Darwinism is a dead end, and he knows it. But it sold a lot of books and made him rich so...

*

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://youtu.be...

http://raytractors.blogspot.com...

https://richarddawkins.net...

http://www.google.com...

http://tumblehomelearning.com...

https://oldestmushroom.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kylet357 6 months ago
kylet357
And one more thing:

"This turns a blind eye to the proccess that would have to take place to get organs, working internal systems, eyes, male and females of same species in real time together with working reproductive systems completely different from one another, a brain, consciousness, systems in place for hearing, breathing, seeing, mating, feeling, etc, the first theoretical "self replicating molecule, etc."

All of the things you described here, would have developed before the animals. Male and females would have developed before dogs existed, contrary to what Ray Comfort says. They would have been developed in earlier organisms as a way to better to produce more complex ones through the mixing of different genes.

I recommend watching these videos on the evolution of sex from Aron Ra:

Sexual vs Asexual Reproduction- https://youtu.be...
Evolution of Sex- https://youtu.be...
Posted by kylet357 6 months ago
kylet357
"there was no blowhole"
There was actually, it was just still at the end of the snout. Pakicetus' nostrils only later went further up the head in later transitions. The nostrils would move farther and farther back.

"there were no flippers (only hooves)"
True, but you ever realize something about a whale's flippers? Go ahead and look up a diagram of a whale skeleton, and look at the flippers. You'll see that they're not like regular flipper bones. Instead, the bones look a lot like hand bones. If Evolution were true, we'd expect to see this in animals that transitioned from land to sea. And another thing, we also know through genetics that the closest living relatives to whales are Hippos, which are hoofed land animals. And there are sea mammals that currently still retain vestiges of hooves. For example, the manatee still has fingernails.

"And besides, we are supposed to ignore the most obvious detractor of darwinism: creatures hundreds of millions of years old in perfect preserved condition trapped in amber that look exactly like they look today."
Well, I wouldn't expect anything else for insects, arachnids, and other small creatures. They're the animals that we most often see trapped in Amber. And I imagine that they have changed. Remember, evolution says that animals will change over time. But this doesn't mean that they're forced to change dramatically, even over the largest time scales. Environmental pressures and natural selection are always in play, and if you have the perfect adaptations for your environment then you're not going to change very much. Also, the majority of the species of animals that you see trapped in amber (if not all of them) don't exist anymore. So while these animals retain a similar shape, they are NOT what we have today. And to say otherwise is not only wrong, but dishonest.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.