The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
solo
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

Macro evolution 6

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: 1,130 times Debate No: 2125
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

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.
solo

Pro

Evolution is not impossible, as you claim, and you cannot prove that to be so. Also, you cannot prove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. If you can, this debate will be over and you will be celebrated for your discovery. Just because there isn't evidence of something does not mean it is an impossibility; only that it may be improbable.
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
solo

Pro

<>

No problemo, amigo! I will take each down different avenues, so don't worry about duplicate arguments on my side.

Dismissing the accuracy of carbon dating, for the sake of argument, when do you suppose that the comet hit the Earth that brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs? Also, if many dinosaur fossils have been found under TONS of dirt, how do you explain the placement of such large amounts of dirt on the fossils in such a brief time period? Rock sediments also indicate the age of the Earth. How do you explain the fact that some rocks, boulders and mountains have layers of sediments that tell a tale far older than 10,000 years?

<<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 .>>

You have no way of knowing how much cosmic dust there was to begin with, so an accurate prediction of this nature cannot logically be made. You've made no reference to the gravitational fields of the planets or moons in this system. If this is so, then why hasn't the Sun already drawn the planets in as well?

<<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.>>

I am an atheist. Your god does not exist, therefore your religious claim is invalid. As for scientific proof that light is slowing down -- I believe this is a lie. What source told you this lie? The speed of light is a constant in the Universe that cannot be change; it has been what it is and will continue to be the very same.

<<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>>

The heat from other stars would not effect the Earth in such a way. It is impossible.

<<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.>>

If you believe that the previously extreme heat from neighboring stars could affect the Earth ages ago, then why can't the gravitational field of a planet fluctuate over time as well? Perhaps the gravity of our moon changed. Perhaps a massive asteroid knocked the moon into a different orbit at some point in its relationship with the 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.>>

The Eagle's landing thrusters cleared that away as it landed. You do realize that even if gravity on the moon is 1/6 of Earth's that the craft would have to slow its descent before actually setting down, right? I could not just drop down safely from orbit. Also, there is no air on the moon. No wind. So dust on the moon does not get transferred around in the same manner as it does here on Earth.

<>

Thank you. This is turning out to be pretty entertaining!
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

thank you solo for staying coalm ok so here your whole dinasuar thing with how they died from an astroied i dont agree with if there was a astroid strong enough to knock out all the dinasuares why didnt life just end

here is my solution there was this thing called a firmament which was a blanket of mosture around the earth which increased the air pressure so dinasuars could breath then when god caused the great flood (this is for another debate and i could more than use the 8000 charecters on it) this was stopped and thats why the dinasuars on the ark died and those on the ground died ok then that takes care of your dinasuars oh and the massive layers and all that came from the flood and the swishing of all those flood waters insesently created layers and an amazing effect.

ok for your claim about the heat of other stars ok our own star would exceed our current orbit while we were evolving just me but at 90,000 degrees i wouldnt be alive

ok if the lander did clear an area then the moon lander would have been able to move around in the 6 feet of moon dust and the people that jumped out of it to take moon rocks would have sunk to there necks or deeper.

oh your argue about the moon leaving you give it a coulple billion years and the moon would escape orbit no matter what.

there are others if you would like challenge me to continue
solo

Pro

<>

Yes, but there's a big crater in the planet that indicates to many that it happened. Celebrated and respected scientists are acknowledged for their interpretation of Earth's history. You may not agree with any of them, but they are still right.

<>

I do not believe in your god's existence. Assuming that I did, however, the Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs anywhere. And especially not on the ark, and according to the Bible, the ark was able to house two of every creature. If your version were true, then why aren't there more dinosaur bones being found? Because they've disintegrated over millions and millions of years ago.

<>

Exactly, which is why life began in the waters and gradually made its way onto land.

<>

I think you're confusing moon dust with snow. They're not alike.

<>

I agree... unless a massive force altered its orbit.

Thanks for the debate and have a great day!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I've determined that many of those are a crap-shoot. I just depends on what the mood of the voters at the time of voting. I'm winning one of those that I shouldn't be. HA!
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Haha, I would use basically the same argument as last time. Remember that one? =)
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Hey Yraelz... how about "1 = 1,000,000,000"?

PSYCH!
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
HA! Yeah, when pressed to be imaginative... but using my imagination on my own, *brain fart*.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Haha, I already gave you a vote on the other debate. You are imaginative i've seen your debates....
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I'm not very imaginative these days.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
You never challenge me Solo, I am a little sad. ='(
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
firemonkey6775soloTied
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 Revid 9 years ago
Revid
firemonkey6775soloTied
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
firemonkey6775soloTied
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 Ozymandias 9 years ago
Ozymandias
firemonkey6775soloTied
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 MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
firemonkey6775soloTied
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
firemonkey6775soloTied
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 Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
firemonkey6775soloTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
firemonkey6775soloTied
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 C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
firemonkey6775soloTied
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
firemonkey6775soloTied
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