The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

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 2 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,024 times Debate No: 29760
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

jh1234l

Pro

I have sent this challenge to FritzStemmberger.

Rules:
This is not a debate on abiogenesis
This is not a debate on the existance of a creator
This is not a debate on the age of the Earth
This is not a debate on educating children on evolution
Burden of Proof is shared
No semantics, all definitions must have a source (e.g. dictionaries)
Voting should not be biased. Votes such as "I agree with pro" and "I agree with con" are invalid, don't skim through the debate and then give all votes to me. I mean, I enjoy votes, but vote bombing is not how it works.

Arguments:

1. Transitional Fossils

If evolution is true, then transitional fossils should be observed. Transitional fossils are observed.[1] In fact, there were many primate fossils that were observed, too. [2] However, there are a few known gaps[2], probably because they have not been discovered yet. This is a valid piece of evidence for evolution.

2. Vestigial structures and atavisms

Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. [3]
Evolution, if true, will leave behind atavisms and vestigial structures. They have been found. There were creatures with atavisms or vestigial structures, such as whales with hindlimbs, newborns born with tails and the wings of the ostriches(which cannot fly), [4][5]thus confirming evolution.

3. Genome Size

Creationists claim that evolution cannot make organisms better and better because the genome cannot create more genes and can only work with what is already there. However, that is false, because the size of the Amoeba dubia genome (not an intellegent creature) is 670,000,000,000 base pairs , while humans have 2,900,000,000. [6] Humans have a smaller genome, but are more evolved and intellegent than the Amoeba. This means that evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://www.livescience.com...
[4]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[5]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[6]www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc
FritzStammberger

Con

1. No fossil is evidence for evolution because you can't prove that fossilized animal had babies, never mind babies different than its self, which is something that has never been observed.

2. Vestigial Structures

- There are NO "vestigial" structures.
"Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional

1.The human tailbone is the anchor point for nine little muscles needed to support the colon, anchor the end of the spinal column, and perform several other functions.
2.The whale does not have a pelvis. Those bones are anchor points for special muscles used during reproduction. The bones of the male whales differ from those of the female. Furthermore, there is no fossil evidence for loss of legs in whales.
3.The spurs on the abdomen of some snakes are also used in mating. We had a fifteen-and-a-half-foot python snake skin at the ministry. You could see the two little half-inch claws; each is attached to a tine bone about two inches long. They are not remnants of legs.
4.The human appendix serves as a part of the immune system today. It"s true that you can live without it. So what? You can live without both of your legs, arms, ears, and eyes as well. That doesn"t prove you don"t need them! Removal of the appendix causes the rest of the immune system to work harder, that"s all. People without their appendix are more likely to live shorter lives and catch more diseases.
http://www.creationtoday.org...

I'm not sure why an ostrich has little wings but I'm sure he needs them or God would not have DESIGNED it that way.

3. Genome Size

"Creationists claim" - Did I claim?

However, you said.

"evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution. "

This is evidence for creation NOT evolution.

"working with what is already there"

I think I will just repeat this back to you a few times.

"working with what is already there"
"working with what is already there"
"working with what is already there"
"working with what is already there"
"working with what is already there"

This is evidence that all creatures were CREATED and DESIGNED.

evolution can do NOTHING except.

"working with what is already there"

If Macro evolution is supported by evidence it is NOT this "evidence" as I have successfully shown.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

No fossil is evidence for evolution because you can't prove that fossilized animal had babies, never mind babies different than its self, which is something that has never been observed.

This argument is invalid. If a species cannot reproduce (produce babies, lay eggs, split into more, etc.) then it would be soon extinct, and therefore we won't see much fossils at all, which is not remotely the case.[1]


- There are NO "vestigial" structures.
"Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional

It is unnecessary for vestiges to lack functions, they are still vestiges. Vestiges do not have to lack functions to be proof for evolution.[2] Not all vestiges lack functions.

"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." -Charles Darwin

1.The human tailbone is the anchor point for nine little muscles needed to support the colon, anchor the end of the spinal column, and perform several other functions.

The source was not talking about that, which is not a true tail. They were talking about true human tails, which has rarely been observed. [3]

2.The whale does not have a pelvis. Those bones are anchor points for special muscles used during reproduction. The bones of the male whales differ from those of the female. Furthermore, there is no fossil evidence for loss of legs in whales.

Irrelevent, I never said whales have pelvises, I was really talking about whales with hindlimbs.

3.The spurs on the abdomen of some snakes are also used in mating. We had a fifteen-and-a-half-foot python snake skin at the ministry. You could see the two little half-inch claws; each is attached to a tine bone about two inches long. They are not remnants of legs.
4.The human appendix serves as a part of the immune system today. It"s true that you can live without it. So what? You can live without both of your legs, arms, ears, and eyes as well. That doesn"t prove you don"t need them! Removal of the appendix causes the rest of the immune system to work harder, that"s all. People without their appendix are more likely to live shorter lives and catch more diseases.

Still irrelevent, vestiges do not need to be not functional to be evidence for evolution, this argument is invalid. [2]

I'm not sure why an ostrich has little wings but I'm sure he needs them or God would not have DESIGNED it that way.

This is a bare assertion based on the assumption that creationism is true which is irrelevent as creation can be corret along with MACRO-evolution.

This is evidence that all creatures were CREATED and DESIGNED.

evolution can do NOTHING except.

"working with what is already there"

If Macro evolution is supported by evidence it is NOT this "evidence" as I have successfully shown.

No, what I meant is that evolution can still create better organisms (new species=macro-evolution) JUST by working with what is already there. Even if evolution can only work with what is already there, macro-evolution is still possible. Con has taken my quote out of context (quote mining) to make it seem to "agree" with his side. That is not a successfull argument. In fact, it is not even an argument at all.

Actual quote in context, it meant something very different than what my opponet thinks it meant.

"Creationists claim that evolution cannot make organisms better and better because the genome cannot create more genes and can only work with what is already there. However, that is false, because the size of the Amoeba dubia genome (not an intellegent creature) is 670,000,000,000 base pairs , while humans have 2,900,000,000. [6] Humans have a smaller genome, but are more evolved and intellegent than the Amoeba. This means that evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution."

Note that it is just by, not only can.

My opponent has taken my quote out of context. That is bad conduct.

"Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." -Theodosius Dobzansky[4]


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
FritzStammberger

Con

I'm still waiting for some good evidence of macro-evolution to be presented.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro


I'm still waiting for some good evidence of macro-evolution to be presented.
My opponent has conceded all three pieces of evidence I posted. He also used irrelevent arguments and/or quote mining. I had a case that was poorly refuted by con, but con never had a case, which does not fit the rules:

Rules:
This is not a debate on abiogenesis
This is not a debate on the existance of a creator
This is not a debate on the age of the Earth
This is not a debate on educating children on evolution
Burden of Proof is shared
No semantics, all definitions must have a source (e.g. dictionaries)
Voting should not be biased. Votes such as "I agree with pro" and "I agree with con" are invalid, don't skim through the debate and then give all votes to me. I mean, I enjoy votes, but vote bombing is not how it works.

BOP is shared, con never met his BOP, I technically should win this debate until con givs me a case, too.

FritzStammberger

Con

The following information is from;
http://www.icr.org...

I agree whole heartedly and couldn't put it any better...

"Evolution Could Never Happen at All"

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

This information is from;
http://www.icr.org...
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease". This is often (wrongly taken to mean that "disorder always increases" and is frequently misinterpreted. Another way of putting it is "An isolated system's ability to do work decreases over time". [1] Plus, entropy ≠ disorder. [1] This is also not a correct place to apply it. [1] This argument, and all arguments based on that, fails.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned).

Lactose tolerance, antibiotic resistant bacteria,[2] mutation that created a super boy (it is true, it was on the msnbc news site)[3] There are many beneficial mutations.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

It actually should be:

From the statements taken out of context and carefully stitched toghether from evolutionists themselves, you have been ticked to thinking that that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits
.

"Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." -Theodosius Dobzansky

[1]http://rationalwiki.org...
[2]http://rationalwiki.org...
[3]http://www.nbcnews.com...
FritzStammberger

Con

2nd law of thermodynamics

"the equations of thermodynamics clearly show that an influx of raw heat energy (as from the sun) into any open system (say the earth) will increase the entropy (or decay) of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system."

"time and chance break things down, they don't build them up"

Lactose tolerance - everyone was ORIGINALLY lactose tolerant.

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria -

Bacteria can gain resistance through two primary ways:
1. By mutation, and
2. By using a built-in design feature to swap DNA (called horizontal gene transfer)"bacteria share resistance genes.

"Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form."

"The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions."
"Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man"functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.
Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world."
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

As for the "super boy" the article goes on to state;

"he was born to a somewhat muscular mother, a 24-year-old former professional sprinter. Her brother and three other close male relatives all were unusually strong, with one of them a construction worker able to unload heavy curbstones by hand."

"The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."

"Internet marketers have been hawking "myostatin-blocking" supplements to bodybuilders, though doctors say the products are useless and perhaps dangerous."

so he has big muscles as a baby but will probably die early because of his mutation.

would you trade a long life span for big muscles as a baby?

http://www.nbcnews.com...

Conclusion:

"Evolution must be believed, not observed. It is a matter of faith, not science. Every created "kind" was to reproduce after its own kind and not to generate some new kind. This does not preclude "horizontal" variations within limits, but it does prohibit "vertical" variation from one kind to some higher kind (e.g. monkeys to men).
Evolution is also in conflict with the teachings of Christ. He should not have healed the lame and sick if progress is measured by the "survival of the fittest." He taught self sacrifice, but evolution is necessarily based on self-preservation in the struggle for existence."

Marx, Lenin and Stalin and Hitler were ardent evolutionists.

"No one has EVER seen anything evolve"the fossil record shows NO evolutionary transitions taking place, and the basic laws of science show it to be impossible. Yet evolutionists insist that this is "science" and should be taught as proved fact to schoolchildren."

(All quotes and info in "Conclusion" taken from Henry M Morris' "Science and the Bible")

Thank you for considering this debate.
Best Regards,
Fritz Stammberger
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro


"the equations of thermodynamics clearly show that an influx of raw heat energy (as from the sun) into any open system (say the earth) will increase the entropy (or decay) of that system more rapidly than if it were an isolated system."

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.[1] The universe as a whole is an isolated system. [2] However, it does not say that it ALWAYS increases. This is a misapplication.

This argument does not apply to biology. One grows up and becomes more complex, but that does not make sense if the thermodynamics argument is true! This also assumes that better organisms = less entropy, which is not the case.


Lactose tolerance - everyone was ORIGINALLY lactose tolerant.

Baseless assertion without a source to back it up.

The beneficial mutations also have negative effects.

Beneficial is only on balance. It only becomes harmful if there are more negative than positive effects. Note tht the doctors used the word COULD.

As con never used a source to prove that everyone was once lactose tolerant, and that does not have negative effects, then there is an example of beneficial mutations.

"No one has EVER seen anything evolve"the fossil record shows NO evolutionary transitions taking place, and the basic laws of science show it to be impossible. Yet evolutionists insist that this is "science" and should be taught as proved fact to schoolchildren."

The fossil records show transitional fossils[3], they are missapplicating the laws of science[2], and then they say that they are correct.

Marx, Lenin and Stalin and Hitler were ardent evolutionists.

This has nothingto do with the validity of it.

More Arguments:

Beneficial mutations:

"Deep in the radioactive bowels of the smashed Chernobyl reactor, a strange new lifeform is blooming"
Mutated mushooms that can survive the radiation inside Chernobyl. Beneficial mutation.[4]

Mirco vs. Macro:

Microevolution is evolution below speciation level, and has been observed by Endler (1980). [5] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution.[6] Microevolution is true, then macroevolution also will be true. If FritzStammberger thinks this is false, then he would also have to agree that you can walk through your kitchen but not through the whole house.

However, sometimes macro evolution occurs without microevolution occuring, an example is gray tree frogs. [6]

Sources:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://rationalwiki.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...
[5]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
[6]http://rationalwiki.org...
FritzStammberger

Con

Thermodynamics in regard to complex biological systems.

"This argument does not apply to biology. One grows up and becomes more complex, but that does not make sense if the thermodynamics argument is true!

-Pro

"Under certain special conditions (not available to evolution, as far as all evidence goes), the organization of an open system may be increased for a time by the entrance of external ORDERING energy, or information. Examples would be the growth of a plant from a seed or the construction of a building from various structural components.

Any such growth process, however, must have a directing program (such as the genetic code in the DNA of the seed or the blueprint for the building), as well as an energy conversion mechanism of some sort to convert the raw energy of the solar heat into the specific work of building up the structure (such as the amazingly complex mechanism of photosynthesis for the seed, or the machinery, fuels, muscles, and minds of the builders in the case of the building).

The imaginary evolutionary growth of complex plants and animals from a primeval cell (and THAT from nonliving chemicals in a hypothetical primordial soup), however, has neither a directing program nor conversion mechanism to accomplish this. It must rely on time and chance, but time and chance break things down - they don't build them up.

-Henry M Morris

"Science and the Bible"

Lactose "Tolerance"

- I was absolutely WRONG when I said;

"everyone was ORIGINALLY lactose tolerant."


In fact, the OPPOSITE is true!

"For many years, lactose intolerance was regarded as abnormal, and was used by many as evidence of human evolution. As a measure of evolutionary “advancement”, milk-drinking seemed to fit the stereotype perfectly."

"However, “lactose deficiency” in adults is not in fact abnormal, but the norm! Research has shown that the gene for lactase normally switches off as children are weaned. And a genetic mutation that results in lactase production not being switched off accounts for the ability of certain people to drink milk into adulthood."

“This is the best example of convergent evolution in humans that I’ve ever seen,” said geneticist Joel Hirschhorn, of the Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts. But note that these genetic changes are not “evolution” in the uphill molecules-to-milkman sense, as the changes are downhill, i.e., information has been LOST (viz., the normal switching-off mechanism of lactase production following weaning).12 Rather, at best this is an example of selection, as Hirschhorn himself went on to acknowledge: “Lactase persistence has always been a textbook example of selection, and now it’ll be a textbook example in a totally different way.”10

"So, those of you who are unable to drink milk as adults today without feeling nauseous (or worse) can take heart from being closer in that respect to the originally “physically-perfect” first man and woman than are those of us who are milk-drinking “mutants”!"

http://creation.com...

12 Wieland, C., The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction), Creation 24(2):16–19, 2002, <creation.com/train>.

10 Check, E., How Africa learned to love the cow, Nature 444(7122):994–996, 21/28 December 2006.

Transitional Fossils

There are NO transitional fossils!!!

All you have is bones in the dirt. You put your interpretation on them. You can not prove that those bones had children never mind children different than themselves!!! (which has NEVER been observed EVER).

There are NO transitional fossils, even if there was 1 supposed transitional fossil somewhere then my opponent failed to show it. There simple are NONE.

Marx, Lenin and Stalin and Hitler were ardent evolutionists.

- This shows the harmful effects of evolutionary philosophy.

Chernobyl Mushrooms

The article states;

"IT’S ALSO THE ABODE of some very hardy fungi which researchers believe aren’t just tolerating the severe radiation, but actually harnessing its energy to thrive."

what's the key word in this sentence, anyone?

- "BELIEVE"!!!

it goes on to state;

"even without melanin, many fungi are intrinsically radiation-resistant."

hmmm

This is simply an adaptation not "vertical" evolution. These mushrooms will never ever ever ever ever turn into mushroom MEN.

Micro Vs Macro:

"Microevolution is evolution below speciation level, and has been observed by Endler (1980). [5] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution.[6] Microevolution is true, then macroevolution also will be true."

-Pro

We obsever variation within kinds but according to fixed limits. Evolutionsist think they can get around this by assertting that the earth is "billions of years old" which it is NOT and my opponent has not even attmpted to prove it is. I will further address this in my pig argument in the conclusion.

CONCLUSION:

I have thoroughly and conclusively dealt with every one of my opponents arguments and shown them to be false. My opponent failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that can not be refuted. You would think that if evolution were true then there should be mountains of really good observations and data to support it, however this is just simply not the case. The theory of evolution is accepted on philosophical grounds NOT scientific. It requires belief and is therefore not science but religion. Even some secular scientists involved in this field are steadily moving away from the theory of evolution by natural selection because the evidence simply does not support it. darwin said that if his theory were true than many transitional fossils would be discovered in the future, they never were.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so….

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good…

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

- Genesis KJV

Thus God created all the animals and plants to bring forth after their KIND. We witness variation within the kinds but according to fixed limits. As Dr Kent Hovind once said;

"farmers have been breeding pigs for a loooong time but they will never breed a pig the size of Texas."

Thank you for carefully considering this debate.

Best Regards,

Fritz Stammberger

Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
why do you prefer a chemical evolution, micro, macro, evolution, instead of evolution period, is it because it shows actual proof. you like to debate things with your set rules as i seen in your history that gives you the edge. Thiesm makes up this chemical and all that, when it comes to the basic evolution, they do not want to debate, it shows actual proof. If we debate on a topic of evolution it will be my choice and I will make the rules. I know I will be fair about it, instead of making rules that will give myself the edge. limiting my opponent, thats a sleezy move. so you will get your challenge in a day or two, let me make it up, I got to take care of my pregnant girlfriend, and have a more clear mind, so give me a day or two and you will see a challenge from me.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
Evolution is evolution. many people just add different things to evolution, but in the dictionary evolution is evolution. A sperm and egg are cells, complex, when they form together, during nine months these cells evolve, devolop, change, etc... (evolution). Right there infront of our eyes, still happening today, denying that makes one blind.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
If you wish, although I prefer labeling abiogenesis under "chemical evolution" rather than "evolution" period.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
If you wish, although I prefer labeling abiogenesis under "chemical evolution" rather than "evolution" period.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Muted, you mean including abiogenesis ,too?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Aceviper, you're playing a case of bait-and-switch. Anyway, would you like to debate the topic of evolution in a molecules-to-man sense?
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
define evolution for me please.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
My faith is in Jesus Christ the Lord of heaven and earth.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
Let me educate you christian came from catholics, as for you advance science, coming from words from a book, that shows no official evidence only hear say, wow im glad I past the eight grade. Open my eyes, let me tell you something, I was once a christian, I was blinded by the christian faith. dats or cogs, let me ask you something why can you not go out side look up and see this god with the naked eye. Speaking of out of date, that bible is out of date. So you put all your faith in this book, then if that book is true that makes harry potter, twilight true also. Are you that closed minded this shall be fun. Just to remind you evolution is one word, one meaning, not all this macro and micro, and chemical. evolution is ONE word only. ONE definition.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro should have defined the resolution carefully. Such debates as these are easy to troll. Arguments go to Pro because Con wasted a whole round where he could have proved that the Pro case was actually supportive of his own.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
jh1234lFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good argument as well as con, but conduct went to pro, con misquoted, manipulated. Both done a good job though on this debate. Wish Pro would of came at this mutation thing a bit different then what he did. There are many people mutated and still living. spelling and grammer most were copy and paste, thats what made it even. sources are the same. Pro shown proof, con avoided and not presented his own proof, beyond the book. Other then that the debate was good overall.