The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
soundofgravity
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Macro evolution 3

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: 1,173 times Debate No: 2122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

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.
soundofgravity

Pro

First of all, there is very little resistance to the idea that Earth is more than 10000 years old, and I would like to hear you justify your reasons for believing Earth to be this young.

Secondly, you seem to be seeing macroevolution as the only form of evolution. The title of this debate is 'Macro Evolution', but in it, you seem to ignore microevolution.

In almost every scientific study done on the subject, microevolution has been shown to be constantly taking place in the everyday world around us. Are you trying to say that creatures in this world are static and it is impossible for, say, a zebra to be born with longer legs and pass these genes down through its offspring, eventually leading to a population as a whole having longer legs because they are much likely to survive? Because, I mean, that's evolution right there.
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
soundofgravity

Pro

All of the arguments you present in favor of the Earth being less than 10,000 years old all assume that everything is a constant and nothing in space could ever interact with anything on Earth or it's vicinity. We know that things interact and change particular facets about the planet all the time, and your debate seems to be ignoring these things and treating the planet as a closed system, immune to all the hazards of the universe.

You also assume, in your star argument for example, that the stars have always been the same size and haven't taken millions of years to form or anything like that, and it comes across like you are presenting that THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE is less than 10,000 years old (but that's just from what I can gather from your argument as I am typing this in my Virtual Space Technology class).

You still also haven't tackled your argument about light slowing down or clarified your definition of evolution, so maybe it wasn't the best idea to do a large group debate with all of these people and concentrate on having a single, intelligent debate that doesn't rely on everybody you are debating with bringing up the same points. You're kind of leaving me hanging here...
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

my star argument says that they would have been a diffrent size because they would have filled up the universe next since there was no millions of years for them to form how did they form

ok and i still waiting for your argument

still no evidence for billlions of years
soundofgravity

Pro

OK.
Although carbon dating can't go very far back in terms of the Earth's history, Pb/Pb dating can.
Pb/Pb dating is the most consistent form of dating, and has predicted that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, give or take 1%.
When you state that this type of dating is inaccurate, what do you assume the cause is for that?
If you mean to point to one specific example where a rock was found to be 6000 years old, then I ask you to think of a wristwatch. If one wristwatch out of ten kept the wrong time, would it then be feasible to ignore the entire group?
And, mind you, saying that 90% of dating tests are wrong is an extremely generous estimate.
You also seem to be refuting the fact that the entire universe is young, but I'm not sure on the exact age you think it to be.
How then, do you explain, the ages we get when we test meteorites that have fallen to Earth, rocks that have interacted with nothing else in the known universe for billions of years?

Anyway, you still left your point about the speed of light slowing down unanswered, a point which I looked forward to seeing you proving.
I also have no idea what you mean when you say
"my star argument says that they would have been a different size because they would have filled up the universe next since there was no millions of years for them to form how did they form", although I think you're asking how stars can form and grow in the thousands of years old you think it to be. Well, the only way to answer that is simply by stating that stars cannot form in thousands of years.
You assume that these stars have been the same size ever since the universe was created.

But, I digress and will now try to bring this debate back to the original point you made on evolution.

Basically, most rational human beings accept that the universe, and the Earth with it, are billions of years old. That gives evolution plenty of time to happen, it gives creatures plenty of time to grow bigger, better, faster, stronger, smarter, or whatever else their environment demands of them. You seem to have completely abandoned your initial argument after your first response, and instead began to focus on the age of the Earth, something which there should be no question about.

And, if it is religion you are so concerned about, please keep in mind that in 1950, Pope Pius XII took up a neutral stance to evolution within the church. Pope John Paul II, who I consider to be a personal hero of mine due to his actions in modernizing the church, would later reaffirm this statement. On October 22, 1996, the Pope addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and stated this...
"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical ['Humati Generis', the work by Pius XII], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact, it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

So, although this stance is the church's view on macroevolution, you never really stated whether you were addressing macro or micro evolution, and the church also firmly asserts that microevolution in continuously happening.

Really, that cut-and-paste argument you provided ticked me off a little, because you seemed to think this group of debates were not important enough to warrant a personal response from you.
But, really, I would like to thank you for allowing me to experience a very enjoyable first debate.
Thanks again.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Well I'll be damned. I thought they were scattered all over the place! Looks like I just found a lot of reading to do XD
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Kleptin, those actually exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Not only answers but source where the claim comes from and peer reviewed reasons why it's horrifically naive.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
That was sarcasm on Tatarize's part.

I'm getting really annoyed at seeing this canned argument. I think we need a group to get together and create canned answers to common Creationist arguments (not necessarily the ones provided) And just post them in response.
Posted by soundofgravity 9 years ago
soundofgravity
"Messingerzt, Sure.

If light is slowing down, then God exists.
God clearly exists you atheistic piece of crap.
Therefore, light is slowing down.

What more could you ask for?"

Could you clarify this a little more, please?
As in, who are you talking to and calling an "atheistic piece of crap"?
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Renzzy, Entirely? Why?

You've given some remarkably good evidence as to macro-evolution. The fact that all organisms share roughly the same structure of DNA and related organisms share very similar DNA is strong evidence that they split off from the same organism some time in the past. In fact, we are using that to determine the relationships between organisms. For example, all of the great apes including humans have a broken gene needed in the synthesis of Vitamin C. We can look at this same gene which does nothing in any of the apes and notice that it's exactly like the gene in dogs save the fact that it is broken such that it will generate nothing. Now, we can see that the same break exists in all of the great apes so we know that all of the great apes descend from an organism in which the needed gene broke.

Further, if you look at for example the Chimpanzee you'll notice that they have two additional chromosomes than humans. Humans have 46 but other great apes have 48. We shouldn't be able to lose that much DNA and not lose a vital gene. So where did it go? Turns out our second chromosome is two chromosomes stuck together. The end parts of the chromosomes are pretty apparent and in humans the 2nd chromosome has the ends on the ends but also in the middle.

Further, I question how you get to your conclusion. You admit that the DNA between species changes but argue that it doesn't change 100% therefore evolution is wrong. The entire point is to show that the DNA changes between species. The fact that large amounts of our DNA exists in cousin species and more in the more related species is fantastic evidence for common descent and macroevolution.

Yes, it makes sense. How does it not? Different species go down different paths and look different. If you go back far enough you will find a common ancestor. So yes, I am a mouse share a common ancestor some 88 million years ago as we are both Euarchontoglires.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Messingerzt, Sure.

If light is slowing down, then God exists.
God clearly exists you atheistic piece of crap.
Therefore, light is slowing down.

What more could you ask for?
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Tatarize,

DNA changes, yes, but it cannot change entirely. Show me evidance of DNA chnging 100%...I bet you can't.

Ah, but it would not have to change entirely, because our DNA ia already so close to that of monkeys, right? Well, our DNA is also 70% similar to bananas, and 90% similar to that of mice. Therfore I think that your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was a banana.

Doesn't make sense, does it.
Posted by Messingerzt 9 years ago
Messingerzt
the speed of light is a constant. id like to see proof of documentation for this "light is slowing down" theory con.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Renzzy, you believe that it's possible for small changes over small periods of time but do not believe there can be large changes over large periods of time?

Sure, you can walk 10 feet going one foot in front of the other. But, 10 MILES! NEVER! To prove that possible you'd have to give me all ten miles of footprints.

Give me a break. The only reason for the macro-evolution micro-evolution divide is to pretend there's a different mechanism when there most definitely is not.

DNA changes all the time, that's exactly what microevolution does... macro does the same but has more changes and more time to do it.

Oy.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I am totally against macroevolution, but am totally for micro. There is plenty of evidance that microevo is taking place right now, enabling species to adapt to changes around their environment. I believe that there is little to no evidance for macroevo however, given the fact that there is no evidance that it is happening today. The kind of evo it would take to turn a monkey into a man would include changing the DNA of the animal, which is impossible. Scientists are also severely lacking in the "intermidiate link" area, which makes their claims hard to back.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Messingerzt 9 years ago
Messingerzt
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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 tonyb2428 9 years ago
tonyb2428
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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 JackDempsey0305 9 years ago
JackDempsey0305
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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 Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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 cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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 soundofgravity 9 years ago
soundofgravity
firemonkey6775soundofgravityTied
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