The Instigator
everseeingeye
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

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

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
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: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,903 times Debate No: 4071
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (62)
Votes (18)

 

everseeingeye

Pro

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.
Tatarize

Con

Thank you for offering this debate. I happily accept it. Let's start off with the basics your argument is an argument from ignorance. Simply because you do not understand how we can have a common ancestor with monkeys does not preclude the fact that we do.

The principle force behind your inability to fathom that evolution could be true is that you don't understand what evolution actually entails.

Years before Charles Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of natural selection in order to explain evolution we had mounting evidence for evolution itself. We had fossils which properly and consistently were of extinct animals. It was previously believed that there were no extinct animals and, in fact, the theory of extinction took a while before it was widely accepted. It was believed that there was literal truth to the story of Noah's Ark and all the animals were saved so they were all around. However finding large fossils like mastodons and knowing most of the world by that time it was quickly becoming evident that there were some species which stopped existing (we know know it's about 99% of all species). Further, it seemed that the older fossils were more simple. The older the fossil the more simple and there seemed to be a remarkable progression of one species into many similar species and the body plan seemed to be, moreover, rather similar. A head, four limbs, a tail, ribs, backbone, and this pattern was repeated even in the thunder lizards (dinosaurs).

We had, long before Darwin's time, an astounding array of different lines of evidence suggesting that the planet was extremely old and that as time went on the organisms on the planet got more and more complex. The facts of evolution were mounting and despite some previous attempts such as the one by Lamarck to explain how an organism could possibly change over time (evolve) it was notably unsatisfactory.

Then Darwin came along with the key to explain it all in an amazing and downright simple way. Artificial selection had been known to every farmer and breeder in England for generations. If you want a faster horse you breed your fastest horse. If you want a sheep with more wool you breed the woolliest sheep. If you want better wheat you plant the seeds of your best wheat. Darwin's insight was to suggest that this same concept applies to nature as well as to the stewardship of human farms. Any species if allowed to breed and have all viable children survive to breed would quickly overrun the planet. If every cricket which could exist did exist the planet would be quickly overflowing with crickets. So there must be some forces, predation, weather, breeding, food, etc. which keep the population of animals in check. Now, what if one of these organisms had a monstrosity (as Darwin called them) which allowed them to gather food a bit better or avoid a predator? He, rather than his numerous cousins would be more likely to survive in the ebbs and flows of nature's selection process. Each species would inevitably be pushed toward the most adapted members. Those members of the species best able to exploit the niche occupied by the species would have more children. Rather than end up with the human selection of the beefiest cow or the fastest dog, nature would select for the fittest individual.

This same process expanded over millions and even billions of years quickly does all the heavy lifting needed to explain life on this planet, it's arrangement, and how it formed.

Your understanding of evolution and it's implications are completely wrong. The fact is that we, and all other species are well adapted for their environment. They are the chief-most members of the species, the best at exploiting their niches. That humans and all species are well adapted for their environment is simply one of the facts of evolution which Darwin's theory explains. Why are we adapted to our environment? Because those members of our species best adapted are the ones who had children. So you see, we don't "evolve" ourselves. We are who we are and nothing is going to change that. Rather, it is through the selection of the best among us to do the best in the environment we are in. Evolution isn't something an individual does, rather it's something a species does.

The majority of mutations do not help an individual. Most of them are neutral and don't have a net effect at all, but many of those which are not neutral do not help us. Those mutations are less likely to pass to the next generation whereas the diamond in the rough. The rare beneficial mutation which helps a species better live in the environment they reside is more likely to pass on. So when mutations arise and cause problem they are quickly rid of, however when they arise as beneficial changes they are that much more likely to pass on to the next generation. For evolution to occur does not matter how many mutations are bad rather that that far away chance exists that one can do better.

Every mutation which has made me who I am has been a positive mutation. How about the mutation which helped to change what was once just a light sensitive spot of skin into a pocketed light sensitive spot of skin during the very early stages of the vertebrate eye? How about the mutations which lead to the formation of my opposable thumbs? How about the gene for blue eyes which has given me blue eyes? How about the gene for hitchhiker's thumb which lets be bend my thumbs backwards at about a 60 degree angle?

Pleading ignorance behind the science does not allow you to suddenly conclude that "We are made in the image of God" -- further to conclude that all genetic change is bad genetic change would force one to assume that God's mutations should be bad as well.

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.

The explanation of how complex things evolve is the same explanation as explaining how the small things evolve too. Light sensitive skin become more and more pocketed will help an organism. As well the formation of a pinhole eye, a lensed eye, and even reflective lensed eye (cats have these we don't). Further, there are some odd quicks with the eye like the veins and nerves run in front of the light sensing cells in something akin to running the wiring for a camera in front of the lens.

Further, evolution is not chance. Sure, there's only such and such a chance of a beneficial mutation but when it happens it becomes important and when some bad mutation occurs, it quickly gets selected against. If you were allowed to keep your bet on a roulette wheel and spin as many times as you'd like would you win? Is that a game of chance? The odds of losing are overwhelming? But because you get to keep spinning you really can't lose and chance is no longer a factor.

Evolution take about as much faith as believing the sun will rise in the morning whereas religion takes as much faith believing there are elves in my pants. However, I do find it hilarious you mention unicorns. You know they are twice mentioned in the Bible right?

I highly recommend the following site:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Several of the links and points made are fantastic. I could summarize a few on top of it if need be.
Debate Round No. 1
everseeingeye

Pro

You mention how Noah's ark must not be taken literally,but there is evidence for it. The oldest living tree is about 4,300 years old. Now why would that be? They say the earth is billions of years old, and yet the oldest tree is 4,300 years old. The answer is simple, there was a global flood 4,400 years ago. After the flood stuff started to grow again.

All you do is mention some mutations that barely change anything at all. Show me a mutation that can turn a fish into a man and then you've got something. For you to bring such minor mutations and concluding that therefore, we were once fish, is like saying "I can walk 1 meter, therefore I can walk to the moon."

Evolution takes millions of years. The earth is only 6000 years, it's just not enough time. Do I have evidence you bet I do.

1: When uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they emit alpha particles—which are actually helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon crystals, from that same deep New Mexico hole, revealed amazingly high helium retention in those crystals. Yet helium is a gas and can diffuse out of crystals much more rapidly than many other elements, including lead. Since heat increases chemical activity, all that helium should be gone if the earth were more than a few thousand years old.

2: Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. The earth could not have been a hot molten mass. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Sources: http://www.freewebtown.com...
Tatarize

Con

First off, you're no closer to proving the topic. You are simply going on another rant with the end result of showing that you don't understand basic science. This is no way to prove evolution is not a valid theory or at the very least just a theory which scientists are only misguided about. The term lie implies that they, in fact, know the truth but are concealing it and spreading falsehoods.

Noah's ark has no evidence for it and should not be taken literally. If the oldest living tree is about 4,300 years old then that would not be evidence for a global flood beyond that point. It would, however, be good evidence for no global flood within the last 4,300 years. However, this is a moot point anyhow. The oldest plant is the the King Clone Creosote bush at 11,700 years old. Furthermore we have tree rings going back 11,000 years and remarkably good geology to show that we've suffered no global floods anytime in our geologic history.

The idea that you think that there is a mutation to turn a fish into a man is part of the problem. Evolution is about small gradual steps. The claim is that I can walk one meter going right foot left foot... but I can't walk 100 km! There's noting between one step and a thousand miles which prevents the next step from happening. I would highly recommend reading "Your Inner Fish" as a good book on showing how the typical fish body type actually does give rise to the human body type. The general head, body, four limbs, mouth, eyes layout actually dates back to fish.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Although, I will admit that if the Earth were only 6000 years old, that wouldn't be enough time for evolution to create the diversity of life we see today. However, the evidence here is overwhelming. You mention uranium decay but cite a flawed metric for using this to date the age of such things. The rate at which heated zircon loses helium while pressurized under the ground is perhaps the worst thing you could look at as pretty much anything is going to screw up the reading. The best would probably be the ratio of isotopes of the associated lead with the uranium. Uranium has a pretty standard ratio of U238 and U235 which results in a ratio of Pb236 and Pb233 which are hard to miss. Comparing the ratio of the lead to uranium and a quick calculation of half-life gives a decay time of more than 3 billion years old (typically the rocks aren't as old as the planet).

The existence of halos in mica would be evidence of radon exposure, as they are found exposed to uranium (which gives off radon) this should be expected. Further, you can't tell the isotope or even the element as all it is is a sign of alpha decay. You are choosing to pretend it's the shortest half-live version of polonium to apparently suppose that some of it got by magic. Really pretty much any alpha decay element could do that.

A number of elements decay to other elements even those with exceedingly short half-lives. The existence of elements with short half-lives does not require one to conclude that such isotopes are unable to be produced today. Carbon 14, for example, has a half-life of 5700 years or so and is still around... this is because despite the half-life more of it is made all the time (in fact the atmospheric ratio is pretty well preserved and thus allows one to do carbon dating). The existence of elements with short half lives are commonly produced by the decay of elements with much longer half-lives. Simply detecting short-half lifed elements would prove nothing. However, this isn't even a case of that, it's much much weaker as far as claims go.

The biggest problem with this crap however is that it is just that, utter crap. Simply citing a few error ridden studies of this or that and hoping people haven't come across them or can recognize the flaws is not a way of proving your case. Your case is not strengthened by flawed evidence and poor reasoning and endless litanies of flawed understanding. You need evidence. The sheer lack of evidence for your case is problematic. First, you need to establish that evolution is false for the sake of this debate. Thus far you've cut and pasted some nonsense from some creationists sites and hoped that I was a moron. I doubt you even understood the claims you were making. Second, you need to establish that scientists know that evolution is false (thus making it a lie). This will be hard to do because even if all the overwhelming evidence is somehow wrong, it's still reasonable to conclude that the sound science is actually sound science.

I'm sorry but the universe did not form several thousand years after the Egyptians first brewed beer. Dinosaur fossils are, get this, really fossils which really do date back millions of years before the P-T boundary. There really is no evidence for a global flood and it really should be disregarded as a feasible possibility. The principles for dating are the same as those which allowed us to build the atomic bomb. One would think that the overwhelming scientific advancements over the last several hundred years would give science some credit. Scientific principles which allowed for the creation of technologies which have made our lives immeasurably better are not wrong. You are simply confused. We use evolution to search for oil by way of marker fossils which allow geologists to find the correct layer of rock based on the organisms which existed at the time. We use evolution to inform our use of antibiotics which are quickly becoming useless as more and more superbugs evolve. Furthermore, we are today using evolution as an engineering process directly by way of genetic programming and evolutionary algorithms. Directly using evolution to solve engineering problems has lead to a number of patents and more than a few on the market products.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you virtually ignored everything I wrote in the previous post. I went to a lot of effort to point out your errors and explain evolution and you picked up that I said Noah's Ark and pasted a bunch of crap from a creationist site. Tisk.
Debate Round No. 2
everseeingeye

Pro

everseeingeye forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

And here I was looking forward to him cutting and pasting a lies from another creationist site of things he doesn't understand. The arguments invariably will be something like the measurements done by X were off. And even though dozens of later studies found the error in the original study and got better values the difference in these values show that science doesn't work. When in reality it's the later work which find and corrects the error which really shows that science works.

Evolution is not a lie because you say it is. Evolution is a scientific theory of notable regard because of the preponderance of evidence surrounding it. We are mammals, we are primates, we are apes, we are humans. We share a common ancestor with all the primates including the monkeys a shy 80 million years ago.

In case you encounter a creationist claim here's a list of all of them with multiple refutations:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

And if you want some of the preponderance of evidence, here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Wow, Jocoby. You fail on so many levels.

Sure. I'll challenge you.
Posted by Jacoby 7 years ago
Jacoby
I'll just call you Con. You called the debater ignorant. He just doesn't understand. Well. based on your comments. You certainly aren't in any position to call anyone ignorant. Arrogance becomes the astute know -it -alls that use dogmatic rhetoric to insure your position. Fact is. Not one thing you stated is a fact on evolution. You]re simply parroting what you THINK you know. That is the problem with amateur debaters. Ever read Punctuated Equilibrium? Gould and his pal made a sorry attempt at revising a silly hypothesis of the evolutionary notion. Anyone worth their salt could see that the pathetic attempt to revive the FAIRYTALE was impossible. Don't be so sure about your science from those who weren't nearly as sure as their followers. I will debate anyone on the technicals of the theory and the abtracts that has perpetuated itself into a truth. Name the day, time and hour. I have Gould's book on my desk in his own words. He was frustrated with the LACK of facts! Good day.
Posted by attrition 8 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 HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
Well you can define a dialect as many things, if an animal uses only body language and some sounds you could, I suppose, consider that a dialect of some sort. But they do act differently though. Lions roar and kind of get low when they feel threatened like they're read to attack, and while cats do do the latter they do not roar, they hiss, i don't think lions do, or can do, that, but i'm just kind of guessing that part.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
A dialect is a very advanced construct of language. Cats don't appear to even have a syntax. Dolphins might have dialects but I doubt that cats have anything similar.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Ahking, lol.
sdfadsfasfsafasd
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
Oh ok, sorry about the freak out, the way you worded it sounded like you were accusing me of that.

BTW Ahking, I crave bananas sometimes. In fact I'm craving one now. Oh oh, ah ah.

"As far as language goes in animals it's doubtful that there's any real language amongst cats of anything in particular. There's purring and hissing and roaring and I assume these are pretty consistently understood."

Meh, true, but then again who knows, maybe they do speak slightly different dialects or what have you.
Posted by Ahking 8 years ago
Ahking
IF HUMAN EVOLVE FROM MONKEY WHY DONT WE CRAVE BANANAs?!!?!?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
>>How exactly do you know they speak the axact same language?

I made that up.

>>And where do you get off accusing me of making things up because I think I can get away with it?

I was saying I was making that up because I can.

>>I was told by a source that I believe to be reliable that they do not speak exactly the same language.

As far as language goes in animals it's doubtful that there's any real language amongst cats of anything in particular. There's purring and hissing and roaring and I assume these are pretty consistently understood.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
How exactly do you know they speak the axact same language? And where do you get off accusing me of making things up because I think I can get away with it? I was told by a source that I believe to be reliable that they do not speak exactly the same language.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dylonx5 5 years ago
dylonx5
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 dvhoose 7 years ago
dvhoose
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 Jesus-The-right-choice 8 years ago
Jesus-The-right-choice
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Paradox 8 years ago
Paradox
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 rewdd 8 years ago
rewdd
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 8 years ago
attrition
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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 dbershevits 8 years ago
dbershevits
everseeingeyeTatarizeTied
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