The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The theory of evolution has critical flaws

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 2 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 49054
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

By "The theory of evolution" I mean the theory that the earth and life began as a result of the Big Bang and that species have gradually evolved over time to form into humans.

By "critical flaws" I mean information that is inconsistent with logic.



First round is for acceptance.
emospongebob527

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent, Benshapiro, for instigating this wonderful debate. I would like also like to thank any future voters who decide to vote on this debate.

Signposting

I will open by challenging my opponent's egregious definition of the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws, presumptions, and straw man-like qualities.

Flawed Definition-

My opponent defines the theory of evolution as, "the theory that the earth and life began as a result of the Big Bang and that species have gradually evolved over time to form into humans.". I will show in this round how this definition is not only flawed and presumptuous, but it is also a straw man definition.

Presumptuous-

My opponent assumes in his definition that the theory of evolution via common descent has anything to do with the beginning of life due to the Big Bang. However, his assumption is false. The Big Bang explains how the universe was born. As Wikipedia states, "At this time, the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae." (1) As we can see, the Big Bang Theory only serves to explain how the universe came into existence, NOT how organisms evolved through evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor. Therefore, my opponent's definition is presumptuous.

Flawed-

Not only is my opponent's definition presumptuous, but it is also flawed, I would argue. If one were to go into Google and search "theory of evolution definition," they would find numerous scientific websites as well as dictionary websites that give generally accurate definitions of what the theory of evolution is.

Merriam-Webster;
"A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time." (2)

The Free Dictionary;
"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." (3)

Biology About;
"Any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable." (4)

Oxford Dictionaries;
"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." (5)

As we can see, I have presented four different sources that fairly define evolution, apart and partially distinct from how my opponent defined it.

Possible Straw man-

Although I can't say for fully affirm whether or not my opponent's definition is a genuine straw man of evolution, it may be. My opponent's definition brings into question something irrevelant, which, to him makes it seems easier to refute. I can't say for sure, perhaps my opponent is genuinely mistaken or misunderstands evolution. If not, and if he had intent to define it that way to give his position more leverage, then it's not a straw man. But, it is flawed and presumptuous (see above subpoints).

Concluding Remarks-

I have demonstrated why my opponent's definition of the theory of evolution flawed, presumptuous, and how it may be a straw man. I have provided superior definitions, with sources, unlike Pro and I showed why his definition is sufficient enough if he hopes to argue against evolution.

I await Pro's opening arguments in support of the motion that the Theory of Evolution has critical flaws.

Sources-

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...'s+theory+of+evolution

4. http://biology.about.com...

5. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

Thanks, con.

I did say that the first round was for acceptance and by briefly mentioning that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution we could have put more focus on the "evolution" aspect of the debate. I was wrong in thinking that the Big Bang was a part of evolutionary theory. My main arguments are against evolution and I'll use the Merriam-Webster definition that you've provided: "the theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time.."

My main arguments against evolution:

1. Mutations are over overwhelmingly harmful rather than beneficial to a species. I believe this is widely accepted among biologists but I will cite numerous source at my opponents request. Since evolution is a spontaneous enhancement of a species' complexity over time, it is not possible due to the improbability of mutations benefitting rather than harming a species. Evolutionists credit mutations for the enhancing complexity of species over time.

2. Second law of thermodynamic states that in a closed system, disorder can only increase. The earth is not technically a closed system because it receives matter (in the form of the rare meteorite entering earth's atmospher) and because the earth receives the sun's energy, but many scientists and textbooks consider earth a closed system due to its balanced processes and applicability of the second law. How could life forms have followed an increasing, upwardly complex energy gradient if life is following a down-hill energy gradient according to the second law? Plants are one of the most sensitive life forms to the sun's energy and can organize themselves into a more complex structure using the suns energy for a brief time but always succumb to the second law even given an adequate supply of light, water, and nutrients. How could literally billions of years worth of upward, complex organization have occurred only using the sun as energy to circumnavigate this second law which states that disorder can only increase? It's absurd.

3. Missing bone evidence of all missing links even though dinosaurs that have pre-existed missing links' bones have been found. This is huge. The only argument evolutionists can give are non-homogenous evidence of creatures that had deformities (ever hear of the elephant man?) If these creatures didn't have deformities, the bone evidence would be homogenous.

4. No explanation for "natural laws" such as gravity, physics, thermodynamics, etc. that are universal and unchanging laws of order. Evolution would have resulted spontaneously and spontaneity defies order.

5. Our conscience dictates our morals. At best, evolution describes morals as existing solely for the propagation of our species. If this were the case, rape resulting in pregnancy would be seen as good. There's also no explanation for the purpose of love if other species have reproduced for millions of years without this.

Thank you and I look forward to your rebuttals.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

My opponent forfeits.

Extend arguments.
emospongebob527

Con

Extend my lack of arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
'I don't understand why people forfeit really easy debates like these. Con only needed one or two sentences max to destroy each of pro points... go figure."

You must be delirious or in denial... I challenge you to logically combat each one of my points in one or two sentences.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 2 years ago
IwinYoulose333
lol. "as wikipedia states"
Posted by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
I don't understand why people forfeit really easy debates like these. Con only needed one or two sentences max to destroy each of pro points... go figure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Benshapiroemospongebob527Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully corrected Pro's definition of evolution. But that's all he did. Pro raised a few relevant points which were not address, not a single one.
Vote Placed by badbob 2 years ago
badbob
Benshapiroemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets opits for conduct because con did more than just accept in first round and then forfeited. Pro gest points for arguments because he actually had some arguments and con did not.