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

Macro evolution 7

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: 1,588 times Debate No: 2126
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

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

I disagree and view dinosaur fossils and carbon dating as very clear evidence that proves the Earth is far older than 10,000 years.
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

HA! My argument was "I disagree and view dinosaur fossils and carbon dating as very clear evidence that proves the Earth is far older than 10,000 years."

My argument stands. Since your argument is based on the age of the Earth, my point invalidates the rest of your argument, as its foundation has been obliterated.

You don't get to delcare that you don't want me to take this approach in the debate. That would be like me asking you to play a game of soccer with me, then telling you that you cannot use your legs or feet to make contact with the ball, in addition to not using your hands. It's too late for that. You should've mentioned that handicap in your opening, not Round Two. Get it? Good!

Address my point with the proper respect it deserves, then I will address yours.
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

carbon dating is based on the thory that the earth is 4.5 billion years onld and they know how really old carboon looks and they know what brand new carbon looks like then they took the diffrence diffided by 4.5 billion thats why when you carbon date a living human or someone burried with in a hundred years are carbon dated its 14,000 years plus please thats obvious to the eye how old they are so why does carbon dating give 14,000 years huh? there is your reason not to use carbon dating and also that is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created
solo

Pro

<>

People tend to believe they can measure up many things by "eyeing" it, but never have I known anyone to eye a body (or anything else) and know how long it has been dead. When have you heard of a crime scene investigator being able to accurately determine a time of death based on appearance? At the very least the temperature has to be taken. It's always a guess that has to be confirmed with lab work, so I refute your claim (from what I could make of it).

<>1

Carbon dating "is why your dinasuars were dieing before the earth was created"? So how were they able to thrive? You didn't answer anything with that statement. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I appreciated the debate and thank you, but you failed to answer the burden of proof, which was on you, to make a strong argument as to why "macro evolution" could not have taken place. Your claims were questionable, at best. Better luck next time!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
@sog: Then I guess it's good for my win ratio that I decided to take on two. HA!

@Tat: Maybe next time!
Posted by soundofgravity 9 years ago
soundofgravity
Man...
I guess this guy isn't responding well to any of these 10 or so debates he made...
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
What? No. My dad is suppose to get beat up.

Pah.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Oh, my dad probably likes to get his butt kicked at Miller Time, so...
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
I love that Bill Hicks joke.

My dad could beat up your dad!

Really? What time is good for him?
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
firemonkey,

You really left me hungry for correct English.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
@ Tatarize: Yes, your arguments were better than both of mine combined. I'll do you one better: I bet your dad could kick my dad's @$$. HA! Have a good night!
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Yes, I read it and you did a fine job. The point is that if that is one of your (his) main arguments, he should already know how it works and argue from there - not expect other people (his opponents) to take the extra time to explain it to him. Willful ignorance on his part proved inexcusable and fatal (within the context of the debate.)
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Carbon-14 dating can only check back about 50,000 years. It's certainly evidence for older than 10,000 years but hardly something you could measure the age of the earth with.

Radiometric dating does however speak volumes.

And Solo, good move debating each debate with different arguments shows some major versatility.

I'm debating #4 and think my debate thus far is better than both of your debates but together.
http://www.debate.org...

*ponders additional fighting words*
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
I explained to him about how carbon dating actually works, but as of right now I don't know what his reply is
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by solo 8 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 PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
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 Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
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 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