The Instigator
NaturalFlavors
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Bubbagump282
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

No Facts for Evolution

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Bubbagump282
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 63646
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

NaturalFlavors

Pro

I do not believe that there is any scientific proof for evolution, I would like Con to prove otherwise.
Bubbagump282

Con

I accept your debate.
About me:
-Current co-leader of a Secular Student Alliance at my high school
-Long time Agnostic-Atheist
-Open to opposing beliefs.

I would consider changing the topic of the debate to be a yes or no answer format just to make it a little less confusing for the voter. All of that aside, let's make this a clean debate.
Debate Round No. 1
NaturalFlavors

Pro

Is sedimentary rock layers evidence for Evolution or Creationism? Please explain.
Bubbagump282

Con

I'm going to ignore the fact that you just evaded your actual debate topic. (Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with sedimentary rock layers. That may have something to do with the Earth's beginning, or maybe even the Earth's age, but not evolution.)
Anything can be proof for anything if you take it in the way you want to. I do believe that the different layers of rock prove the idea of an old Earth, far more than one roughly 6,000 years old.
For instance, lets think about how new layers of rock are formed. The Earth's crust splits open just enough to let magma through, then cooling it down and creating more stone. This process takes a very long time to make any difference, and you can see that in various rock layers. In the Grand Canyon, you can see these perfectly. Not only do you see the many layers of rock that the Earth has made, but also the years and years of erosion created by the river passing through it. Erosion does not simply happen overnight, but over years and years of gradually wearing down the sediment. These rocks have been aged many times, and most scientists will agree that it is roughly 250 million years of age. The average young-earth creationist will say that it is roughly 6,000, but I would rather trust years of science rather than a singular book written by people from thousands of years ago with no previous background of geology/science.
Debate Round No. 2
NaturalFlavors

Pro

NaturalFlavors forfeited this round.
Bubbagump282

Con

Micro-evolution has been observed many times before. It is proven fact that one species can develop new traits and habits over a process that takes many, many years. There is no disproving this. What gets skewed by creationists -and people who chose not to believe in evolution in general- is that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a much larger period of time.

Many examples prove evolution, like the famed Darwin's Finches (thirteen different species of one single finch, being a certain variety of tree finch), the Pod Mrcaru Lizard (originally from an island separate to their new home of Pod Mrcaru, known for rapidly evolving and adapting to their current home.) and years of fossil data.

While on the subject of fossil evidence, understand that if one single fossil were to be found out of place compared to many other organisms, the idea of evolution would crumble. But, as you can see, no such thing has been found. Evolution is a very fragile subject, but nothing thus far has disproved it. Not one single thing. The science we have now is vastly superior when compared to the "Science" used by the ancients writing the bible. You can't just use your God for what you don't know.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Hey pro, I'm standing with you. Just a hint, Scientists know as an easily proven fact that under the conditions of a world wide flood, the sedimentary rock would have formed in about 20 minutes. one proof that this actually happened is that archaeologists have found STANDING, PETRIFIED trees within these rock layers. This means that the rock layers formed around the trees very quickly as the trees petrified and died. (like I said, within about 20 minutes) Do your own research of course first before posting this argument if you choose to do so. You will find more evidence than this. Look up the Grand Canyon as well.
Posted by Bubbagump282 2 years ago
Bubbagump282
Messed up in my first statement. I meant to say something along the lines of "Is Evolution scientifically false?" or something among the lines of that. Having a negative in the title is an unnecessary labor.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
NaturalFlavorsBubbagump282Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
NaturalFlavorsBubbagump282Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited round three, and really had no case.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
NaturalFlavorsBubbagump282Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for forfeit of round. Pro's contribution to the debate was a question about rock layers which is not on topic. Further more Con provided examples of evidence for evolution. Arguments go to Con for providing an actual argument.
Vote Placed by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
NaturalFlavorsBubbagump282Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I just don't agree. Also, I don't understand how scientists found out how old a rock is by it's layers. It's not like you can just look at a rock that is chopped in half and say, "Oh, it has four rings, I will guess it's four years old." How do they come up with the amount of years per layer? Surely no one would be able to survive long enough for that test to discover the results. Isn't there a possibility the rock layers of the Earth grow at different speeds than rock layers of pebbles in your landscaping?