The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
61 Points

Macro evolution 5

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: 1,557 times Debate No: 2124
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (18)

 

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.
Kleptin

Pro

"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."

I find your argument to be logically fallacious in several accounts.

Thesis: Evolution is impossible
1. Earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years
2. Thus, no evidence that an evolutionist has is valid
3. Therefore, evolution is impossible.

First of all, you offer no evidence for the first point, which is what your entire argument hinges on, as it is your only premise. An argument cannot be sound unless the premises are valid, and there is sufficient evidence by innumerable scientific experts that the Earth has existed for more than 6-10 thousand years.

Second, your argument commits a non-sequitor fallacy because the second point does not logically follow from the first.

Having said that, I will make my case very simply. There has been a lot of bad science floating around the internet in terms of trying to disprove evolution. Certain religious zealots who have an incessant need to validate their faith pervert science in order to do so. Whereas there are mounds upon mounds of scientific evidence for evolution, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, for a more likely alternative.

Science is about observation and testing in order to come to a conclusion. Not about using and abusing science to prove a prior "conclusion" as true, at all costs.
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
Kleptin

Pro

I know I'm not supposed to verbally attack my opponents, and I hope you don't take offense to this, but I'm really getting tired of seeing recycled "Hovind" points that come from all sorts of questionable websites, translated to laymen's terms that elicit believers out of sheer confusion.

I don't find any of your following points credible in any way, shape, or form, until you can provide documentation from an unbiased source, but I will respond to them. However, these facts that you have no doubt collected from the four corners of the internet amongst Creationist propaganda sites and shady conspiracy organizations are obscure, and I'll respond to them without searching on any science or response forum (I'm almost positive these are all addressed and refuted somewhere out there).

Your argument about carbon dating. Carbon 14 dating involves the study of half-life reactions, and we know the half life of the atom because we've duplicated it on a smaller scale. We understand two things: the rate of the reaction and that the rate constant is predictable. We know this because it operates under a reaction law where the decay is exponential and there is an established decay constant. Thus, there is no mathematical error nor is there a flawed assumption at the foundation of carbon 14 dating.

"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 ."

This is what I like to call "deliberate ambiguity and intentional deception". The site where you got this from probably didn't take into account the fact that what goes in, must come out. Also, the rate at which the sun "sucks in dust" cannot be constant. So the math is off that way as well. But then again, you are a believer that the sun was plopped, fully formed as it was, hanging in space. So your argument actually begs the question and violates the laws of logic.

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.

Ok, I just violated my own promise, and for that, I'm sorry. I consulted a neutral source that gives voice to both creationist and evolutionist alike. Talk origins.

Simply put, you're wrong. I had my doubts because the scale from billions of years to 6000 years would mean a substantial decrease in the speed of light. A decrease beyond absurdity. You're right, a scientific experiment has been conducted. And you're wrong. Please see last example on this page.

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

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

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They evolved from apes. And 100,000 years ago, the atmosphere and space looked pretty much the way it does now. You're the one making a positive claim, so burden of proof falls on you. How do you know there were stars that filled the universe 100,000 years ago?

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.

Again, "deliberate ambiguity and intentional deception". While Hovind's 4 function calculator worked quite well, his mind did not. The rate has changed. If the rate didn't change, it would violate the laws of physics.

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.

This piece of ... data ... is a bit too obscure for me. Please provide some sort of corresponding evidence, preferably peer reviewed and substantiated.
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years.

ok also i used a book so dont give me this thing about your site is dis createded or what ever.

ok then i really dont care what animal we suposedly evolved from ok so my next argument will ask a question

how can you augment your mind far enough to think that you came from a fish ok really

i believe the number one reason every single one of you believe this is cause you dont want god
Kleptin

Pro

"you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points"

My hypothesis is based on scientific reasoning. It doesn't make sense that the sun would suck in the same amount year after year. And half-life is a constant value, so carbon can't decay at different rates. Same exponential value.

"ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years."

When did that happen? Maybe one lab made a mistake, but I doubt it happens frequently.

"ok also i used a book so dont give me this thing about your site is dis createded or what ever."

Well, your book must be very popular and very wrong, because it has the same simple arguments that are being disproven and criticizedby scientists all over the internet.

"ok then i really dont care what animal we suposedly evolved from ok so my next argument will ask a question"

Yes, but it shows you know next to nothing about evolution. You just care about validating the bible no matter what.

"how can you augment your mind far enough to think that you came from a fish ok really"

It's called "not being a slave to indoctrination".

"i believe the number one reason every single one of you believe this is cause you dont want god"

When did God come into the picture? Maybe this is the way God brought us all into life, maybe God created the universe 4 billion years ago. If the bible is wrong, it doesn't mean God is wrong. It just means humans are wrong, because humans were responsible for writing the bible.

Yes, I know, divinely inspired. Do you really think the voice of God can be heard 100% correct by the ears of man?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Evolution turns one creature into another after evolving for adaption so much that it deviates almost completely from what it once was; hence why it takes millions of years.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Firemonkey doesn't state the position particularly well, but has a solid point.

We are to believe science when they tell us all life originated from a single cell creature (that come from where, exactly?) Yet the same science can't solve MUCH simpler problems such as cures for various diseases?

I don't care how many billions of years you give it, evolution, as it's sold to us, isn't possible.

Evolution for adaptation is a fact. Evolution for turning one creature into another is absurd.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wise8231 6 years ago
Wise8231
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 solo 9 years ago
solo
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
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 Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
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 cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
firemonkey6775KleptinTied
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