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

Resolved, Evolution Is False

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: 4/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 74343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am a strong Believer in the Bible, and I want to argue with someone on the Evolution side. I don't want to argue about Micro Evolution, but about Monkeys to Man thing. I never understood this, and I wanted to see another person's point of view. Beware that this is my first online debate, so I am not used to this kind of debating.
I know that Micro Evolution exists by the will of the Lord Jesus, but I believe that the Monkey to Man is a bunch of *excuse me...* crap.


I accept the challenge.
Evolution - The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Debate Round No. 1


I hope that this will be a friendly debate, in which we state out sides of the argument.

Number one, The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or law of biology. To be a scientific law, it must be 100% correct and have proof to back it up.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables
New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.
Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.


Thank you for posting your arguments, of course this will be a friendly debate. Good luck!

1. The history of the earth is very long

The earth is 4.6 billion years old, that is a lot of time! Even if we were to assume the earth had only started when the bible created the first man (time of adam and eve), that would be 10000 to 4000 BC (based on number of generations stated in the bible before Jesus). Which is actually the time when humans started "appearing" on earth. The rate at which DNA modifies is very little. From the time when the first man started "existing" to today, (around 12000 to 6000 years), assuming an average age for giving birth for a woman is 240 to 480 generations.

With only 240 to 480 generations, people who move to new environments have already adapted to the change and changed physically according to the surroundings. Dark people have separated from light coloured people, people nowadays have much less body hair because they do not require it and people are increasing in size because of recent nutrition advancements in the 20th century. If we were to extrapolate this change to over the time apes have started appearing on earth (8 million years ago), you can definitely imagine the change to be much greater.

2. Evolution doesn't comprise of just natural selection

Evolution is a huge term related to much larger number of factors, the environment being the biggest. The environment affects the human in many ways. There are direct ways such as lack of sunlight (as PRO commented). The lack of sunlight reduces the body necessity to produce chemicals that "tan" the skin. Thus the skin for northern mammals in general are lighter. The indirect way of evolution is that the changes in the environment make some kind of organism more advantages. For example: The grizzly bear and the polar bear probably evolved from the same bear, we do not know what color that bear which was evolved from looked like, but the lighter of the bears started moving to the north because they have a predator advantage there (camouflage).

3. In nature there is no real time where we can exact a change in species

The selective breeding of dogs have only started in the 1900s and in the 2000s, (in dog years that is around 10 generations) the selective breeder dogs look only slightly different. It is almost the same as breeding a black man and a white man and ending up with a brown man.

The word species is a relative term, when apes evolved into humans, there is a slow and steady change in the DNA over time. But there is no exact time when we can call a ape a human. The time when the characteristic ancestral "ape" appeared on earth is 80 million years. Assuming fertility at 20 years, an overestimate), that is around 4 million generations! It can be expected that if we selectively breed dogs for 4 million generations, then we wouldn't even recognize the dog anymore. Scientists can then consider the difference to be considered a new "species".
Debate Round No. 2


Jennine forfeited this round.


vuwij forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by USPharaoh 2 years ago
Evolution is a "just so" explanation of what could of happened... and a failing support structure behind it.... new and better science proves where the neo-darwinists fail at their attempts to support this crumbling position.
Posted by Wavuan 2 years ago
1) "Number one, The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or law of biology. To be a scientific law, it must be 100% correct and have proof to back it up."

There really isn't proof about anything in the Bible being true at all. The events depicted can be seen as a metaphor (A metaphor for what though?) now that we know it absolutely can't occur, but people still haven't waived it off totally false.

2) "Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof."

There has been proof species has evolved, we just cannot say it was absolutely evolution. For example, Charles Darwin's Finches. Google it if you want more information, but a brief summary, Darwin went to Mediterranean, saw Finches with different food sources, their beaks that aid them in getting and eating their food source changed over time when they migrate, their beaks change to their new food source. Humans have a tail bone, you can feel it on your person right now, why is that their? God doesn't explain it but says his image of humans is having that. Evolution says we evolved from the ape which has tails, and we evolved out of the tail and that is our mark, or there is a part of the human body, that is completely useless called the appendix, God's answer? That's his image of a human, adding a useless part to them! Evolution? An animal we evolved from used it for survival, or something important.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
*facepalm* another victim of poor education in America.
Posted by Lumberjay85 2 years ago
Just a heads up. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys. It says that man and apes came from a common ancestor and evolved on different paths.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both participants forfeited the last round; Conduct is tied. S/G appeared even. Pro begins the debate demonstrating and stating a misunderstanding of evolution. Pro's round 2 arguments are refuted by Con, and the resolution is not held true. Arguments to Con. Neither participant used sources,