The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Is the theory of evolution true?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 75149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




No it's not true, God created the animals. How could anything so complex as, say, an eyeball, be created by mere chance? It couldn't, because the theory of evolution is based upon getting an "upgrade" or mutation that helps the organism in some way to dominate the others it lives with so it can reproduce and make more animals with that mutation. The eyeball wasn't created first try, and it wouldn't be any good if you couldn't see out of it, it would be worse! You can't see, but can still hurt your eye on a rock or something. So how can an eye come to be? God created it.


I find it astonishing that in this day and age, that people still do not believe in evolution. In this debate, it will not only be my goal to convince the voters that evolution a fact, but also you. Holding a belief in a God or a deity does not need to be exclusive to the theory of evolution. Any serious scientist today, even religious ones, believe in evolution. Why? Because there is too great an amount of empirical evidence to back it up. The theory of evolution has been continually expanded upon, and has come a long way since Charles Darwin first formulated the scientific theory by natural selection, that he first introduced in his book "On the Origin of Species" published in 1859.

You use the eye's incredible complexity as an example as to why something that intricate could not have been "mutated" or "upgraded" over time. Before I get into my argument as to how an eye could have evolved, I will start off by giving one quick example (among countless others) where evolution has been proven as a fact.

"Even though earlier scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding."

What scientists discovered was that whale species has internal rudiments of the hind limbs and pelvic girdle. This led them to the conclusion that earlier species actually had hind legs. The theory has later been proven through a number of fossil and skeletal records, thanks in large part to the work of Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology. Ambulocetus natans an earlier version of the whale species, had a whip-like tail and used its legs to provide most of the propulsive force needed to move through water. As I'm sure you know whales are mammals and not fish. This is because about 50 to 60 millions of years ago, some mammals wandered off of the land and into the ocean, and there they evolved into different types of marine mammals. For whales and dolphins, their front legs turned into flippers. Their back legs became really tiny, so tiny that you can't even see them when you look at these animals, but still they have hind legs still inside their bodies. You also see this in other water mammals like seals, walruses and porpoises. This is an example of land organisms that later evolved to better suit a water habitat.

This I think, is a fitting introduction to get an idea how the eye might have been developed.

Human eyesight is actually not perfect. Not if we compare it to many bird species. Take the eagle; With their 20/5 vision, they can see five times farther than humans.

"The Eagle's retinas are more densely coated with light-detecting cells called cones than human retinas, enhancing their power to resolve fine details just as higher pixel density increases the resolving power of cameras. Also they have a much deeper fovea, a cone-rich structure in the backs of the eyes of both humans and eagles that detects light from the center of our visual field. On top of sharp focus and a central magnifier, eagles, like all birds, also have superior color vision. They see colors as more vivid than we do, can discriminate between more shades, and can also see ultraviolet light, an ability that evolved to help them detect the UV-reflecting urine trails of small prey."

If human eyes really were perfectly created, then why is that we cannot see UV-light, and why is it that birds perceive colors and shades more accurately than we do? Maybe because birds, being flying animals, has evolved better vision to adapt to the great altitude, from where they have to spot potential danger or prey on the ground.

Humans do not have the best eyesight in nature, and they sure do not have the worst. Some and insect species, especially those which habitat dark climates like caves, or deep sea levels, do not have eye sight at all.

"The Kauai Cave Wolf Spider (Adelocosa anops), discovered in 1971, can be found on the Hawaiian island of Kauai and inside five caves where only about two dozen in total are thought to live. The caves were formed between 3.6 and 5.6 million years ago so the spider has had several million years to evolve into its current eyeless state " "anops" means eyeless, by the way. The creature relies upon a finely tuned sense of touch and the ability to note minute vibrations when stalking prey within the volcanic caves" pitch-black environs. That"s a normal Wolf Spider at above right, compared with A. Anops on the left."

This is an example of how one cave species has evolved and adapted to their environment. They do not have eyevision, simply because they do not need it to function where they live. Instead, they have developed superior sensory abilities to be more effective in their habitat.

So human eyesight is not the best, not the worst. It is what it needs to be.

If you still are not convinced. I'll finish off with a counter argument as to how something complex only can be attributed to a God or creator.

If you are so amazed and bewildered by the complexity of the eye. How is it that anything as so complex as a God created something as the eye? How did this being come to be? What created the God that created the eye. The origin and evolution of the eye might be a very difficult thing to understand, but I think that the latter is an even greater leap of faith.

"Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea)" by Phil Gingerich
"On the Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin
Debate Round No. 1


I will address all of your statements, first of which being the argument about the whales and their bone structures. I still believe that God had created all the animals, but not necessarily the ones we know today. In the Bible it does not list any of then animals he made or Adam named, so it could be any and all of the ancient animals we know of. The whales/land mammals you referred to, is there solid proof that they went into water? I know that their back leg is there, even though it is useless, but is there fossils scientists have found for every organism leading up to the modern whale, or just gaps in between? Have scientists found fossils midway through the process of going into the water?

I personally do not believe the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, but that God created the Earth long, long beforehand. The Bible says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. It then goes on about each day he created something new, the sun, the oceans, the animals, up to the humans. But this does not actually mean every day. The bible had to be copied down, and to do that they had to be written down by hand. Sometimes, the person copying the book would change a word here and there, so it made more sense. When the bible says, "day", it could mean any amount of time, in the sense you are talking about God. How can you put a measure of time on a holy being outside of time? You really can't. The person copying down the bible could've said, "then the next amount of time nobody knows because God is outside of time, he created the oceans." But he made it simpler by just saying, day. That can explain why there aren't humans present through most of history.

The eagle eye and cave spider example are not evolving, in my opinion. And the definition of evolution's opinion: "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to developed and diversified from each other during the history of the Earth." This definition can mean that the organism is changing to a different species entirely, but that isn't what the cave spider is doing. The cave spider is just adapting to its cave environment. Adapting. Not evolving, because it is still the Kuaui Cabe Spider.

I will leave you with another, but more intricate argument than the eyeball. What about a woodpecker? It has its tongue, around its brain! No other animal does that, so how did that come to be? Did before that happen, all the woodpeckers kill themselves? Or did God create it that way?


You say that there is no mention of the animals God made, or that Adam named in the bible. Actually there are plenty of animals named in the bible. Animals like snakes, sheep, wolves, lions, and whales (even people living inside them for three days) are mentioned on several occasions. Yet you do not see any creatures similar to the dinosaurs. That is probably because at the time the bible was written, they hadn't made archaeological findings like today.

As for the whale fossils; Yes they have found a solid fossil record of the whale going back millions from of years ago to today , and yes of course there are still gaps. These are being continually filled and expanded upon. Fossils are a hard thing to come by, but even so, whenever a new one is found, it continues to confirm what evolutionary biologist already have theorized, rather than disprove it. "The missing link" is not even a valid argument anymore, after all the evidence that has piled through time. When Darwin made his theory public, it may very well have been. Now after all the empirical work done by archaeologists and scientists, it can no longer be used as an solid argument against evolution. I invite you to go to the library or search the web for fossil findings, and look at the many findings of the progression of different species.

Your position to the bible, is interpreting it in a metaphorical way. Which I think is much more healthy to make this an intellectually stimulating debate than if you were to take the bible literally. Still, if you want to use the bible as a science text, you cannot take subjective position so that what's written fit into your belief. Can you imagine what would happen if scientists were to do that? It would break all development and communication, and turn into chaos. Also, how can you know that the bible is correct book, why not the Koran, or the Vedas? You also mentioned that the bible is written by several people. That is maybe one reason why it is full contradictions. Which points to that it actually are written by just that. People. Or maybe God just changes his mind a lot when he is dictating a chosen subject for his latest chapter or verse.

Even if there is no way to measure God. There is a way to measure evolution. And I think arguing for the existence of something that cannot be measured is a far more improbable claim than what actually can be.

The woodpecker's physiology is actually a perfect example of evolution. First off, it does not have it's tongue around the brain, but attached to the skull. Like many other bird species, the woodpecker has a Y- shaped hyoid apparatus, that extends all the way to the tip of their tongues.

"The fork in the "Y" sits just in front of the throat, and it is in this area that most of the muscles of the hyoid attach. Two long structures, the "horns" of the hyoid, grow backwards from this area and provide insertion sites for protractor muscles which originate on the lower jaw. The hyoid horns of some species of woodpeckers are quite startling in appearance, as they can grow all the way up to the top of the head and, in some species, grow around the eye socket, or even extend into the nasal cavity"

So the woodpecker's tongue structure is not unique to other bird species, but more of an extension of what is already common bird anatomy. As to why woodpeckers evolved an extended tongue structure compared to other birds, is quite simple. In order to protect it's brain from trauma, pecking away 12- 15 miles an hour, with 12 000 pecks on a regular day. It has evolved a thick and spongy bone surrounding the brain, loaded with trabeculae, microscopic beam for support and protection. Yet another good example of how a species have evolved to survive most efficiently, as the woodpecker use their powerful neck muscles and skull structure to find insects under bark, or make nests inside trees.
Debate Round No. 2


You have proven me wrong again, I am not very good at this I guess. Starting this argument and now I have changed my beliefs to a point farther towards evolution. I believe that evolution can take place, although I still feel like the "Big Bang Theory" isn't true, I'm not sure if you do. I feel like a mix between Bible and Textbook is true. That God created animals and they can and have evolved and adapted. So I guess I lost haha


I think that it is very big of you to openly admit changing your opinion about evolution. Even more so, actually changing your opinion. It takes a mature mind to be able to widen its horizons . Much respect for that. It has been a pleasure to debate you on this topic. Thanks for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BearWithMe 3 years ago
If some else doesn't except I'll consider it. I don't want to point anything out right now just in case I accept the challenge.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in the last round.