The Instigator
everseeingeye
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
93 Points

The Theory of Evolution is a lie and We did not come from monkeys.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/17/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,178 times Debate No: 4072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (24)

 

everseeingeye

Pro

1 debate per person please.

I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad.

How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes.

Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence.

So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you.
Vi_Veri

Con

"doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted?"

Evolution is adaptation.

First, I must make corrections in my opponent's information. The easiest one to explain is , quote, "Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes."

What my opponent doesn't realize is that evolution makes no claims to where we came from, but how we adapted to our environment biologically (and that's why even the Pope has claimed that evolution is compatible with Catholicism, adding only that God's hand must have guided it.) The problems that evolution creates for Intelligent Design believers are many, but this isn't a valid problem. http://www.talkorigins.org...

Next, evolution theory in no way says we are descendents of monkeys. This shows an obvious unfamiliarity with the topic of evolution on the part of my opponent. Human beings are a descendents of hominids. Simple and brief explanation of how we are not monkey descendants, but all branched out of the Family Hominidae:

Taxonomy refers to classification of living organisms. They are classified into the following categories: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

Let's categorize humans and monkeys (we'll do the specific monkey Bonobo for our purposes http://en.wikipedia.org...) and hominids (we'll do Sahelanthropus tchadensis, (http://en.wikipedia.org...) to present their differences.

Human Taxonomy:
Doman: Eukaryota, Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Homo, Species: sapien

Bonobo Taxonomy:
Doman: Eukaryota, Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Pan, Species: paniscus

Sahelanthropus tchadensis Taxonomy:
Doman: Eukaryota, Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Sahelanthropus, Species: tchadensis

Now that I have presented to my opponent where the three split off (at Genus), we can start our actual argument here:

Evolution is based on three principles:

1. As organisms reproduce, more offspring will be formed than can survive. This causes competition for sources of energy and habitat. Only the fittest organisms will survive.
2. During cell division, minute changes will be introduced in the offspring. Such mutations will generate genetic diversity among the offspring.
3. The result of these two processes, competition and diversity, is a selection pressure that will favour certain populations that are best qualified to survive. Over time, this will result in notable changes of a species.

My opponent asked for me to give him examples of good mutations. Positive mutations is sort of a misnomer. It all depends on the environment and the selection pressure that is exerted on the organism; it is "relative". Here is a list of mutations, their positives and negatives (as most things on earth):

1. Hyper mobility - double jointed (Neg. arthritis)
2. Sickle cell anemia- helps protect against maleria (Neg. vein blockage)
3. Skin Color - helps protect against certain sun rays in area (Neg. Doesnt apply to areas outside of adapted environment)
4. muscle density mutations - some good at running short distances very fast and some good at running medium, some good at running long (Neg. pertains to adapted environment)

So again, mutations depend on environment. Some adaptations dont work in other areas (like a desert mutation being applied to the jungle).

Here is the quick break down about why the eye can not be a perfect god creation:

"Evolution also posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. The human eye, for example, is the result of a long and complex pathway that goes back hundreds of millions of years. Initially a simple eyespot with a handful of light sensitive cells that provided information to the organism about an important source of the light; it developed into a recessed eyespot, where a small surface indentation filled with light-sensitive cells provided additional data on the direction of light; then into a deep recession eyespot, where additional cells at greater depth provide more accurate information about the environment; then into a pinhole camera eye that is able to focus an image on the back of a deeply-recessed layer of light-sensitive cells; then into a pinhole lens eye that is able to focus the image; then into a complex eye found in such modern mammals as humans.

The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and back-wards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses- which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?" (Quote Dr. Michael Shermer)

As for "facts", what facts do you wish for? Do you want fossil evidence? Because I can show you the fossils. Do you want genetic evidence? For I can show you that as well. Do you want transitional phases? I have plenty of those. I need to know exactly what kind of evidence my opponent is asking for. I will gladly show him next round all of the evidence he asks for. My question for my opponent is as follows: Show me, fossil, genetic, and anti-transitional evidence in the support of intelligent design. You can add any other evidence you wish, and I will reply to it.

Evolution preformed by bacteria:

"It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant."
(http://www.accessexcellence.org...)

Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck experimented on the bacteria to assess how this happened, and eventually came to the conclusion that bacteria does mutate (and at a quick rate at that because of short life spans http://www.bacteriamuseum.org...).

Now from science,to argue philosophy on my opponent. My opponent made a philosophical claim on atheists, so I wish to show him his fallacies now:

1. "Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence."

Ad hominem attack right there. You have no evidence presented on your character claim against the atheists(there is an i after e in atheist) Also commit Poisoning the Well.

2. "because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you."

Ad hominem

3. "I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys"

Ad hominem, Personal attack.

4. "Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none."

Begging the question

5. "How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? The fact is, evolution takes faith."

Ad hominem, Begging the Question

Unfortunate character limit. -V
Debate Round No. 1
everseeingeye

Pro

Great, it's no wonder why you observe macroevolution, you get to determine what a "kind" of animal is in the first place! you set it up with genus, phylum, and whatever. Just show me a fish turning into a man and then we'll talk.

The word "evolution" has Six meanings, only one of which is scientific
- 1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. a.k.a. big bang
- 2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
- 3. Stellar and Planetary evolution - Planets and stars forming (never been observed)
- 4. Organic evolution - Origin of life.
- 5. Macro-Evolution - changing from one kind of animal into another.
- 6. Micro-Evolution - variation within kinds (big dog, little dog. Only this one has been observed and is scientific. this does not contradict with creation or the bible in anyway.)
* The first 5 are not scientific, they have never been observed, never tested. Now you can believe they happened, but do realize that you just left the realm of science and entered into religion.

As for your evidence, you have none. Fossils? Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance." "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." And this supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

Genetics? Of course we share similar genes with animals, WE CAME FROM THE SAME GOD! duh! dumb athiests...

If the earth is billions of years old than how do you account for the Carbon-14 ammounts in our atmosphere? We get C-14 due to radiation from the sun entering out atmosphere and some becomes C14. Scientists have calculated that on a brand new planet about the size of earth, it would take about 30,000 years for the C14 to hit the equilibrium point (no more coming in, none leaving, a.k.a. the ammount stays the same). Our atmosphere is still gaining c14.
That proves the earth is less than 30,000 years old

Ok fine, so you can name a few mutations, do they make a human become a different species? no.

sources:http://www.freewebtown.com...
Vi_Veri

Con

I want to begin by discrediting my opponent's source. First of all, it's a freewebtown address. Freewebtown is a personal website builder where you can post anything to your heart's content. The .com site my opponent posted has no scientific sponsors yet makes scientific claims.

My opponent's source:
http://www.freewebtown.com...

The freewebtown website:
http://www.100best-free-web-space.com...

A website I made myself (just for my opponent *winks*): http://www.freewebtown.com...

Secondly, I would like to add that my opponent provided me with none of the evidence that I specifically asked for. He avoided my questions and tossed my evidence aside as if it were a chocolate bar wrapper. Therefore, all my evidence stands.

Now to the argument:

""Great, it's no wonder why you observe macroevolution, you get to determine what a "kind" of animal is in the first place! you set it up with genus, phylum, and whatever. Just show me a fish turning into a man and then we'll talk."

A real life fish you can find today in Australia that has land animal qualities: a Lung fish.
http://www.nature.com...

"Creationists often note that "observation" is a step in the scientific method but neglect to mention that it refers to the initial observation of some situation that needs explanation (say, the diversity of species on earth today). Explaining those observations involves forming a hypothesis and testing its implications with evidence, which does not require literally watching something with eyeballs." (A) Proof of observations, because your faulty site just didn't get it right. This should also count towards my evidence of evolution:

Cosmic evolution:

Researches at the esteemed University of Chicago have conducted a cold dark matter model which explains the distribution of galaxies in the universe. Their observations were compared to current observations and matched excellently. (1) NASA's Hubble telescope has created a 3D map that shows, in large scale, the distribution of dark matter. " This milestone takes astronomers from inference to direct observation of dark matter's influence in the universe." The map was created using Hubble's largest survey of the universe, COSMOS. The Hubble's observations were combined with powerful ground based telescope's observations. (2,4) Observations of supernovas, such as Shelton 1987, that was discovered immediately after its light waves reached earth. The observations of Shelton 1987 through the time span it developed were critical to observing how supernovas form into dwarf stars and or black holes. (3) Just yesterday the Hubble discovered the missing baryons substances that make up the excess matter of the universe. They are the backbone of the universe, and now with their discovery, scientist can observe how "Baryonic matter forms stars, planets, moons, and even the interstellar gas and dust from which new stars are born." (5)

Chemical evolution:

Faraday discussion 133, "The meeting focused on recent astronomical observations of molecules in various regions and eras of the Universe, and on describing the processes that determine the chemistry. These processes include gas phase neutral exchanges and ion-molecule reactions, surface reactions on dust grains, and the radiative processing of dirty ices." (1) The replacement of one crystalline phase by another http://www.cosis.net... (2) Experiment conducted to show chemical composition of the atmosphere during prehistoric earth and the experiments observations. It was sustainable and also created "proteinoids" in the process. (3)

Stellar and Planetary evolution

Again, I can site here the baryonic matter found by the Hubble. (1) Scientists are watching the development of the youngest supernova ever found, and in our very own milky way. She is named Chandra. Direct observation of stellar evolution. (2)

Organic Evolution

I can again site the experiment conducted to show chemical composition of the atmosphere, resulting in "proteinoids." (1) Observations have been made that humans are poorly equipped to walk upright, horse have "splint" bones, the appendix in humans is a very nice example, and even whales having hips. (2) "Five major forms (lamellar, banded, crack-like, disseminated and segregated encrustation) of organic matter distribution in source rocks have been revealed under scanning electron microscope by using the heavy metal staining technique. The degree of organic impregnation is related to the amount of liquid hydrocarbons in the rocks, and from this relationship a rough estimation of organic matter can be made on the basis of electron microscopic observations. In conjunction with experimental studies it has been found that the distribution forms of organic matter are a function of its maturity in the process of thermal evolution and accordingly some microscopic criteria can be developed for the assessment of source rocks." (3)

And last but not least...

Macro-Evolution:

"The honeysuckle maggot fly has recently been found to have directly arisen from a hybridization between the snowberry maggot fly and the blueberry maggot fly.

In 1905, in his patch of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered an unusual specimen, and found that he was unable to crossbreed it with its parent-plants. He later named it O. gigas, and found that it had 2N=28, while its parent had 2N=14.

It is a known scientific fact that all plants on planet earth evolved from oceanic cyanobacteria, which gave rise to algae, which in turn gave rise to mosses, which began the process of transitioning from aquatic plants to land plants. Once this transition was made from the water to the land, diversification and speciation gave rise to all the land plants which exist today. This is a prime example of macro-evolution, although it did occur some 3 billion years ago and continues on to the present." (1,2,3) We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia. (4)

Carbon 14 dating:

This is an extremely old argument that has been debunked already. Because I'm running out of characters and need to refute the rest of your argument, here is the exact argument you made and the scientific rebuttal http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Ok fine, so you can name a few mutations, do they make a human become a different species? No."

Yes it does. If there are enough mutations, then the two groups of humans divided by environment (like mountain range) can not mate. Of course, our evolution isn't as dramatic now a days because we do not have these huge environmental rifts.

"Genetics? Of course we share similar genes with animals, WE CAME FROM THE SAME GOD! duh! dumb athiests…"

Ad hominem, Straw Man (And how does that make sense? Do explain and don't avoid explaining it in your next argument, please.) And you misspelled atheist again.

And the last bit against the geological column...one word... erosion. They take it into account. Please research actual geology before attacking it with a .com site.

Regards,

Vi

Post note: My sources will be in the comments as I do not have enough characters to accommodate them all in post.
Debate Round No. 2
everseeingeye

Pro

everseeingeye forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

It seems that my opponent has failed to supply an argument to my last post. I have no further need to add to my proof, then.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Everseeingeye: I am serious bro. You just might be literally insane:

Insanity: Derangement of the mind in regard of a single subject only; also, such a concentration of interest upon one particular subject or train of ideas to show mental derangement.

Also the common refrain; Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I would seek counseling.

(I am going to post these on every Evolution debate you have had...just so I make sure you see it. And maybe more than once so it will possibly sink in)
Posted by christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
don't worry man. As your Christian brother I support you!
Posted by Jeevez 9 years ago
Jeevez
hahaha
destroyed.
yet again, nice job
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
hahahahaah.... wow yes, that made perfect sense :D
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
Why are people who don't believe in evolution so frequently completely ignorant about what evolution actually posits? (whoops...guess I answered my own question).
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Thanks guys :) The compliments are appreciated very much....

And yes. Hopefully we can do away with these debates... Obviously they can't prove anything *laughs*

clemsongirl5353, just keep debating :)
Posted by clemsongirl5353 9 years ago
clemsongirl5353
WOW!!! Vi Veri: you r an amazing debator. Even though I side with your opponent, i still voted for you based on your style and the informtion you provide. I hope one day I can debate you.
Posted by ghegeman 9 years ago
ghegeman
Nice one vi veri. I do wonder when these debates will be obsolete...
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
I'd love for my opponent to read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Sources:

Cosmic evolution:
1. http://www-news.uchicago.edu...
2. http://hubblesite.org...
3. http://query.nytimes.com...
4. http://cosmos.astro.caltech.edu...
5. http://www.nasa.gov...

Chemical evolution:
1. http://www.rsc.org...
2. http://www.cosis.net...
3. http://www.grisda.org...

Stellar and Planetary evolution (same as cosmic rather):
1. http://www.nasa.gov...
2. http://chandra.harvard.edu...

Organic evolution:
1. http://www.grisda.org...
2. http://faculty.weber.edu...
3. http://www.springerlink.com...

Macro-Evolution:
(A)1. Theobald, Douglas, 1999. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification.
2. Bloomberg, David. Observed Instances of Speciation
3. Holmes, Bob New animal species evolved in an instant, New Scientist 18:24 27 July 2005
4. (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275).
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 cookielove13 8 years ago
cookielove13
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 Feklahr 8 years ago
Feklahr
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 Paradox 9 years ago
Paradox
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 Puck 9 years ago
Puck
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 attrition 9 years ago
attrition
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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 christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
everseeingeyeVi_VeriTied
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:30