The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

Macro evolution 2

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,899 times Debate No: 2121
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (16)

 

firemonkey6775

Con

Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years and there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible.
Yraelz

Pro

Okay. So lets look at what macro-evolution is.

Macroevolution is the compound of micro-evolution. Being the idea that through microevolution a species can evolve into another type of species.

Which leads us to the question of what a species is.

"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology." - Wiki

So what does it take for macroevolution to occur then?

Simply the microevolution of a species reproductive organs. What would cause such microevolution? Gene mutation, habitat, pleasurable positions.

So onto your random case.

"Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years "

>>How does this prove micro or macroevolution does not exist? First off scientists can see microevolution happen, and macroevolution in single celled organisms at the very least. Secondly carbon dating is trust worthy up to 50,000 years and it is thought that the world is billions old. Where do you pull 6-10 thousand from?

"there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible...."

>>Not seeing the logic. Even if you can prove to me that evolutionists have no evidence that is valid how does that disprove macroevolution?
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Con

i would like to thank all of you that have taken an interest in my debates and or taken one of them up for those of you who did not get one and wish you would have i will have another set of them coming when i finish this set in about a week. Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times

First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that." here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old

1.The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out .
2.ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it.
3.ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen
4.ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth.
5.next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was � of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period.

Ok well there you go

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i am sorry bout that last statemnt your right i should not have said if you have no evidence its impossible i should have said it is very unlikely
Yraelz

Pro

Sorry in advance this is going to be quazi-angry debate mode. =)

On to your arguments line by line.

"First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are........"

>>Do you have any idea what carbon dating is?! Carbon dating is based off of the isotope of carbon , carbon-14. This isotope is unstable and goes through radioactive beta decay. Which results in a half life of every 5730 years. Carbon-14 like any other gaseous element (isotope in this case) spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere and results in the composition of carbon-14 being constant throughout the atmosphere and environment. The constant being set at 1 part carbon-14 per trillion. This means that in every mole of anything on earth ,that has an interaction with the atmosphere, that there are 600 billion atoms of carbon-14 per every 6023 x 10^23 atoms of everything else.

Every organism that lives is therefor exchanging this constant of carbon-14 with its environment up to the day it dies. At which point the exchange stops and carbon-14 slowly turns into nitrogen-14 through beta decay. So what does this mean exactly?

This means that when you die you will have roughly 600 billion atoms of carbon-14 in your for every mole. After 5730 years there will only be 300 billion left per mole. This is a half-life and is good up to 60,000 years with precision.

Onto your next arguments. Which I am going to label by the numbers you offered me.

1. Where did you come up with this!? Source please. This is called the Poynting-Robertson effect and yes it definitely does pull dust into the sun. But it can also have the opposite effect of pushing dust away from the sun. Also its effect on dust is relative:

Fpr = Wv/C^2 = ((R^2)/4C^2)(((GMsLs^2)/R^5))^(1/2)

where W is the power of the incoming radiation, v is the grain's velocity, c is the speed of light, r the object's radius, G is the universal gravitational constant, Ms the Sun's mass, Ls is the solar luminosity and R the object's orbital radius.

My main argument is however 1). you seem to be under the impression that this results in it pulling in 100,000 tons a day constantly. No this is relative to the formula. 2. You seem to be under the impression that our solar system only has so much dust. 3. When a particle of dust is vaporized by the sun it doesn't disappear it only breaks down into smaller particles. Once small enough the same force you claim responsible for sucking them in, Poynting-Robertson effect, will actually force particles back out into the solar system by bouncing "sunlight" off of them. At this point the particles are free to react with others and become dust all over again. Thus we have a solar recycling system. yay....

also

"Every star generates a stellar wind of particles that causes a continual outflow of gas into space. The Sun loses 10-14 solar masses every year" -Wiki

Our sun is actually getting slowly smaller and smaller because it is losing mass to the solar system.

2. ....You have just informed me that the speed of light is in fact not a constant.... The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second. The speed of light outside of a vacuum can move slower than this however it does not, probably will not(until proven otherwise) , and has not moved faster than this. For those of you who do not understand what a vacuum is I will paraphrase it as being somewhere where no outside force will have an effect on an object. Thus the object is free to go as fast as it wants. Secondly you tell me if god made the universe he could make light wherever he wanted. Sure but to do so it would require him going against the own physics that he created. Making him a hypocrite. =) By the way I disregard your god point until you can prove me he exists and that he actually did this if he does exist.

3. This is not true at all. When stars are formed they have about 23-28% helium within them and the rest of the star is mostly hydrogen. As time goes on however a star gains more helium in its core and in order to keep up nuclear fusion it must compensate by burning more hydrogen. This actually results in a star burning brighter and brighter as time goes on.

"The Sun, for example, is estimated to have increased in luminosity by about 40% since it reached the main sequence 4.6 billion years ago." -Wiki

Cross apply my point from (1.) that says the sun is slowly losing mass. 0.01% of mass per year to be exact. Thus suns would not have filled our galaxy back then or resulted in needed cataclysmic amounts of sunscreen for monkeys. -.-

4. "Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the oceans affects the orbit of the Moon. From the Moon's point of view, the tidal bulges are carried ahead by the rotation of the Earth, so that they don't point directly toward the Moon. The gravitational coupling drains kinetic energy and angular momentum from the Earth's rotation. In turn, angular momentum is added to the Moon's orbit. Somewhat counterintuitively, this moves the Moon to a higher orbit with a longer period. This results in a 3.8 cm yearly increase in the distance between the two bodies.[53] The Moon will continue to move slowly away from the Earth until the tidal effects between the two are no longer of significance, whereupon the Moon's orbit will stabilize." - Wiki

What does this mean? The moon is slowly moving away from the earth 3.8 cms yearly. However this rate is not a set constant it is dependent on the tidal bulges. Thus in the past the moon could have been moving away, towards or not at all in relation to the earth depending on the tides. Also if we look to the the generally accepted theory of how the moon was formed, "Giant impact theory", we can see that the proto-earth that was impacted would have taken many years for water to reform if it had had water in the first place. Not to mention an atmosphere.

If you really want to prove your point tell me when the earth reformed after the Giant Impact, when water began to mass after that point and then prove that the force from the tides has remained the same constant on the moon. Then tie those all together and show me how the moon according to this theory should actually be many miles farther from the earth than it is today. Good luck.

5. I have no idea where you came up with the idea that moon should have 6 feet of dust on the surface. Nor do I know where you came up with the notion that 1/4 of an inch correlates to 6,000-10,000 years. Under standard mathematics if 6 feet = 4.5 billion years then 1/4 an inch should be 15,625,000 years. Which still doesn't correspond to your 6,000 - 10,000 years. So first off I would like to see your evidence on every claim you make here. Secondly.... if the eagle truly was designed to land on 6 feet of moon dust and your ideas are all correct. Then I would like to congratulate the eagle for it obviously succeeded in its job. Obviously it did not sink 6 feet into the moon and instead landed on the top 1/4 an inch. Good job eagle!

So now my conclusion. Being you sight all these examples for why the earth is obviously only 6000-10,000 years old (which aren't supported by any evidence) but you never actually attack what I said. Specifically you never attack the fact that macroevolution does not need 10,000 years to occur. It could feasibly occur at any point through genetic mutations. Therefor even if my voter would like to agree with all 5 of my opponents points I still urge for a Pro vote. Thanks.

P.S Sorry this is so long.
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

ok i am bypassing your other arguments and skipping down to number 3. because i would rather not spend a couple more days researching ok so here goes nothing

.3 ok you say the sun loses .01 ok so it had last year compared to its current version 100.01% ok agreed 2 years ago 100.0201 correct then 3 years ago 100.030201 ok so lets follow a pattern here so 10,000 years ago we would have had double the sun right yeahh ok 20,000 years ago 4 times the sun ok 30,000 8 times the sun
40 tousand = 16 times times the sun
50 thousand = 32 times times the sun
100 thousand = 1,024 times the sun
1 mill = 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 times the sun
4.6 bill = 2 to the power of 460,000 (my calculator ran out of room)

(ok i did .01 is a ten thousandths of a whole so in 10,000 years 2 times ok so set that to 100 precent another 10,000 years you have 200% orginal was 50% of that and so 4 times the original in 20,000 years)

so either we get sucked in by the incredible mass this sun alone would have or get fried your choice (we get fried either way)

ok so there you go the votes will still go your way put i hope you have figured out that evolution and billions of years is rather crazy

there you go 30 minutes with a calculator and the universe isnt 4.6 billion years old yet you will insist
Yraelz

Pro

Haha.... So please let me first point out that points 1,2,4, and 5 were not attacked thus I win on them all for lack of refutation.

My opponent goes on to attack my third point by using the number 0.01% per year. So first off i'd like to apologize for mis-portraying my evidence. The entire quotation is as follows:

"Every star generates a stellar wind of particles that causes a continual outflow of gas into space. For most stars, the amount of mass lost is negligible. The Sun loses 10−14 solar masses every year,[33] or about 0.01% of its total mass over its entire lifespan. However very massive stars can lose 10−7 to 10−5 solar masses each year, significantly affecting their evolution.[34] Stars that begin with more than 50 solar masses can lose over half their total mass while they remain on the main sequence.[35]" -Wiki (stars)

The important part is the "loses 10−14 solar masses every year,[33] or about 0.01% of its total mass over its entire lifespan" What I had meant to say was that it loses 10-14 solar masses every year which correlates to 0.01% over its entire life time, not every year.

Thus your point falls. However you have no opportunity to respond to this and it was definitely my mistake, so if you would like to you can respond in the comment section. Voters please consider this.

My summary however does not hinge on any of the 5 points. It hinges on the fact that macro-evolution doesn't need more than 10,000 years to happen. Macro-evolution can feasibly be happening around us today. This point you never attack, and drop, thus I for lack of refutation I have won the debate (in my own eyes). Thank you everyone for voting.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Sorry, this "10−14" is supposed to say 10-14
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I agree. Not wanting to do research and thus skipping key arguments isn't a successful strategy in winning. Good job Yraelz!
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
The debate's winner is clear to see.

This point has been made not just by Pro, but by about 5 other people. Myself included.

Keep on going with these threads, and I'm just going to make it a habit to vote for whoever opposes you, firemonkey.

Give it up. You lost. Over 6 times. That's enough.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
http://www.astronomycafe.net...

"The luminosity of the Sun is 200 trillion trillion watts or 2 x 10^33 ergs per second. From Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^2, and using c = 3 x 10^10 centimeters/sec, the Sun's luminosity is equal to a loss of mass from the fusion cycle of about 2 x 10^12 grams/second. Over one year this is 7 x 10^19 grams, and over the entire life of the Sun to date is about 3.1 x 10^29 grams. The mass of the Sun is 4 x 10^33 grams so this loss equals 0.008 percent of its current mass. The mass of Jupiter is about 0.1 percent of the Sun's current mass, so over the Sun's entire lifetime to date, it has lost barely 0.08 percent of Jupiter's mass, or about the mass of the Earth."
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Thanks tatarize, your input interests me.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Yraelz, Creationists would believe that because I just ate a quarter pound of food five minutes ago I must be born within the last week.

1/4 pound in five minutes => 1 pound ever 20 minutes => 3 pounds ever hour => 73 pounds a day => 511 pounds a week. Hell the heaviest person ever was born at most 2 weeks ago. Clearly all this evolution stuff is mumbo-jumbo.

Every change must have been doing exactly that since the start of the universe. You lose one hair in a given second and you'll be bald in a day and a half.

Such odd sets of arguments these.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Please use punctuation correctly, it makes this rather hard to read.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by guyonthecomputer 9 years ago
guyonthecomputer
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ithuwakaga 9 years ago
Ithuwakaga
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by mynameisjonas 9 years ago
mynameisjonas
firemonkey6775YraelzTied
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:30