The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Mermaids Exist !

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 69546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I have strong evidence for the existence of mermaids or marine ape like creatures based on knowledge we currently have about evolution.


Mermaids do not exist for several reasons. Number one though is that There is NO such thing as evolution.
Debate Round No. 1


How do you account for the development of wolves into dogs, camels to llamas, land mammals becoming whales, dolphins, seals, otters etc.? Evolution is a fact, change over time is evolution and it is a fact that species sperated and isolated into different ecosystems will adapt and evolve to fit a specific ecosystem. It's not something that you can just say "Doesn't Exist".


It does not exist. There are all kinds of different animals that have an effect on our environment. Each one was made differently. While we are all connected to animals (because we are one ourselves), it does not mean that we evolved into them.
May I bring up the fact that all trees are related to each other? Each tree possess similar characteristics to another tree. It does not mean, however, that one tree was made and then other trees evolved from that. basically, that is what people are trying to say with us and other animals. Because we possess similar traits to other animals we must have evolved from them. This is not the case. We were all unique animals, different in our own ways because that is what was intended, not because we have evolved from something else.

(Am I allowed to bring religion into this or am I restricted to science only??)
Debate Round No. 2


First of with a quick Google search or through any scholarly biology article you can confirm that all plants evolved from a group of green algae 510 million years ago and possibly earlier. The change over time needed for these things is longer than you could possibly imagine and all of it took place way before your religion was even conceived of. Whale's have pelvic bones and vestigial legs and lungs. They once walked on land then went to the sea to find food why couldn't early neanderthals and homo erectus (both confirmed early human species) do the same and eventually break off to become humans. I don't accept religion in this debate because it too is also a by product of evolution.

Everything I stated above can be confirmed online right now.


Everything you said, you claim can be confirmed online right now. However, you did not give any references. The whole point of debating and then having a voting period is that people can be swayed one way or the other. How should they be swayed if they have to go and look it up themselves to find out if you're lying? It should be as simple as"Click on the link and it will say what I have just stated."
Second, religion was the very first thing before any revolution. God created the world. God created animals. God created plants. God created humans. There for, your statement of not accepting religion because it came from evolution, makes it able for me to use religion in here. So, to continue on:
The walking on land and then going into water to find food is a myth. (Just like mermaids.) It is something that people made up to try and convince people that evolution is indeed true. I know that everyone keeps trying to prove it to others that evolution is real, but if that is so, then there would be half monkey/half humans in the world right now who are trying to 'evolve' to humans. There are None.
Third, what you have said about whales, actually was just was I said in my previous argument when I said that animals and mammals have similar characteristics to us and to other living creatures. Using that statement was of no use to you.

If you have more to say or argue about anything I just said, please start a new debate on this and I will be glad to prove you wrong again. :)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by fasttrack 1 year ago
Obviously science is brought into this. However, even in religion there is some science. So, I was curious as to whether or not having a religious point of view would be okay. if you are going to make comments about the things that are said, I strongly suggest you get a full understanding of what is actually happening and going on. Please and thank you.
Posted by RetreHawk 1 year ago
Also I'm not sure how you can not talk of a subject like this and not have science brought into it...
Posted by RetreHawk 1 year ago
LOL, "everything I have stated before can be confirmed right now". A. well duh you can find any thing online (northwestern tree octopus),B The same applies to fasttrack, and C ITS THE INTERNET FOR PETE'S SAKE! I mean seriously, are you living under a rock, over 70 years old and or younger than 3?
Posted by Tminusfour20 1 year ago
@ leo.messi I'm talking evolution as a whole. If one species of animal change their physical appearance and genetic code based on changes in environmental pressures and natural selection it no longer looks like the previous species. That is evolution. If we took 10,000 humans and placed them on mars ( Theoretically speaking) after 100,000 years humans on that planet would no longer look the same act the same or even be able to mate with us. That is evolution/ change over time. Because we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old we know that humans and plenty of other creatures on earth had plenty of time to spread out and evolve into many different things. You're life is only 85 years long don't be upset if u cant see it all happen before your eyes.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Change over time is not evolution...
what are you talkin about anyways?
macro-evolution or micro-evolution?

And evolution does not prove that unseen things (or things seen by very few delusional people or made up by them) exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gannon260 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: From a scientific standpoint, pro won. Science is a well renown theory therefore a fact in the community. Also con argued against the fact that pro had no evidence while con herself did not have any either. Plus even if God was real, can't he do all things? then why can't he make a mermaid.