There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and I hope this turns out to be a great debate. To begin the debate, I shall first define key terms:

[Word - Substantial]
[Source - http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.

[Word - Fossil]
[Source - http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc.

[Word - Evidence]
[Source - http://dictionary.reference.com...]

That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

[Word - Evolution]
[Source - http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

====================
Conclusion
====================

With only these simple definitions put in place, I will allow my opponent to have the first say. Remember, by accepting this debate you accept these definitions (any contentions should be in the comment sections).

Ok right where to begin?

Thank you again for another pointless but fun debate. Just to let you know I take evolution as a joke. One big joke.

I would like to point out that by saying fossils are proof for evolution is like saying a missed target was shot at, again. You simply can not say both fossils or the shot are proof for either the target being hit or not or that the fossil as alive creature, gave birth. By saying fossils are proof of evolution, you are saying also, if a target is missed, it will be shot at in till it is hit. That maybe the case that adventually the target will be hit but you got to be there to witness the shot to be completely sure. Just like you have to witness a dead long gone creature giving birth to a creature you think it evolved into. Otherwise it is one large geussing game of prove me wrong.

You can take physicality as a belief too as well as spiritual existence. For an example, you have to believe that aliens exist, as you do not know for sure. Just like evolution you have to believe it, and alike with aliens there is no proof for either. Whats the difference? Alien's, you could believe that they exist, but you can not see them, as either they are too far away or they are to close to us to be seen (aliens huh). So aliens have a possible existence on their side, but not being able to see them because they are not on planet earth is a down side on their behalf. Evolution has the aspect of being able to be seen, all the dead creatures, beast and monsters, but they are dead and can not see them, but we could if they were alive. So evolution has the fact that we can witness, as they are where we live on planet earth. But evolutions' down side is that they can not been seen as they are now fossils. Let me put this in a clearer perspective for you.

Aliens - Can not be seen as their are too far away. Might be seen because they might already exist.

Evolution - Fossils for fact could be seen as they once were living creatures. Never again will they be seen because they are now none existent.

Tell me if you have to believe in aliens, why take evolution as a proven fact? Why not take the existence of aliens be classed as a scientific fact too? Come on, see how fast open space is. One person could own 1 trillion stars on earth, just for the size value. Same equal properties, just different values. Surely they are worth the same? ^^^^Aliens and evolution^^^^ that is.

Next I will discus why I think fossils prove nothing towards evolutiuon.

Fossils are only remains on a once lived creatures. The strongest point here is that you or anyone else does not know for sure that any fossil gave birth to offspring. You know the sex and you know that they must have had offspring to get creatures we have on earth today. But, this is what no one knows, which creature gave offspring, and when. You may guess at the date or which creature gave birth, however you can never be totaly sure. You also can not know whether the cureture is any different than it's perants, as you can not give any DNA samples as both are dead. You either put together a jigsaw puzzle which can not fit together bit by bit but the picture would match up, or you have a jigsaw puzzle what fits together but the picture on the puzzle does not match up or make any sense. You can not inherit both, as you were not there but you are here now, either that or you die now and know what creatures look like today but you will not be here to tell people evolution is for real. Sorry by my methods for fossils are no proof for evolution at all. Carbon 14 dating and all the other datings, rock testing etc... Just either add dust or take dust away, in that I mean sometimes they are trusted other times they are not? Dating methods are either trusted or not. Just can not have both. Examples:

"A Dinosaur carbon dated 9,890 years and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim" - The Bible and Radiometric dating (The problem with Carbon 14 dating and other methods)

A living mollusks was dated by using carbon 14 dating to be found at 23,000 years old.

So what are you thoughts now? Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question)

Or are you now going to change the facts to fit your evolution theory?

This is another quotation, it is taking about carbon dating, "This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead." -- The Bible and Radiometric dating (The problem with Carbon 14 dating and other methods) After finding out that the date which the carbon dating produced made out that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago. I for one just believe in the Bible. You may support me on this more than these carbon dating results, am I right?

Look alikes:

You will say that because one kind of creature looks the similiar it must be related, now there are different points of veiws you can look at this. You can say that all animals have limbs so they must be all related in some way or another. Or you can say one animal has two springy legs used for jumping and a croaky sound when it calls out. You would then say that a frog is related to a toad or another frog which is much smaller and produces deadly posion. Where as you would say that all animals are related in some way because they all have a beating heart. Either that is logic or just plain stupid. I think it is stupid. Not logical as you have come across a new bigger problem, to disprove a common designer, which is needed to create the universe in the first place. I am logical in both ways where you are only in one. I am logical about there being a common designer and I am logical about the universe needing a creator as the universe is a creation. You are only logical about, if whether all creature have eyes then they are all related in some way or another. And not at all logical about the universe appearing from nowhere or nothingness. That is final. Period!

However, lets continue alittle further. You could also say that all mamales are related because they all have hair. No, you are getting closer but you are still off target. We are trying to get accuracy here not a convient belief system going. You clearly do not know if a mouse is related to a cammal because you have not witnessed any offspring which has caused there to be either a cammal or a mouse from a none mouse or cammal. You only use the fossil record like our belief in God and Christ that the Bible uses as evidence for both God and Jesus. Jesus and God both do exist no doubt just like those fossils once existed as living creatures. Evermore we take ours as a belief that Jesus did those miricals and the Christian God created the universe. You do not take it as a belief but ponder on about it being scientificly proven, when it clearly has not. If you do not believe in one thing, you have to believe in another I supose.

Anyway if you said, "Ok then all creatures that can have hair, have two eyes on front of the head (not on the side) and have able fingers that can pick objects up, are all related." Again this is closer but you still have a huge variety of mamales which all have those features. Monkies, apes and humans. It seems that monkies are best at climbing, and apes are worse than monkies but better than humans. By this link you asume by using miss used logic, that can easily be mistaken for the truth, by using this logic you are forgetting about God, purposely.In that God exists today and because of that you fear hell as a consequence. These mamales are not related and none have a common ancestor but a common designer.

Your life becomes much more meaningful, worthy and great when you look at life like this.
Not meaningless, worthless and petty.

Thank you.

I thank my opponent for his fast response, and surprisingly coherent argument. Whether he typed it himself, or someone else did, who knows and who cares - I'm glad we can get something constructive going on anyway. And while my opponent may think evolution is a joke, I too take Creationism, "intelligent falling", and religion as a joke. Equal standing ground eh ;D?

Also, I want to note to my opponent and the voters that many of my opponent's arguments are peculiar, to say the least, to understand. Therefore, if I misrepresent an argument then I apologize.

====================
CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth
====================

I actually applaud my opponent for an original argument. Though it is incredibly erroneous in understanding, kudos for originality. Now onto the meat of my opponent's argument:

He states that seeing an animal being fossilized, a fossil, does not tell us whether or not that particular animal has given birth - and he is correct in saying so. However, to take the extra leap of saying that the entire SPECIES has not reproduced (at least a regular pace) would be an extraordinary error. There are several reasons why we should suppose that the species a fossil used to pertain to was, to some degree, successful at reproducing:

1. Any species as a whole that lasts over a span of time must need a way to reproduce, if that span of time is at least significant in it's difference. For example, let's suppose that we find a fossil of an animal called A. This first fossil we found will be called fossil X. We date it and we find out that it lived 100,000 years ago. Later on, someone else finds another fossil of animal A - we will call this fossil Y. When we date fossil Y, we find out that it turns out to be 7,500 years old (suppose no drastic variations has happened). From here, we can stem that animal A's species lasted for at least 92,500 years - how else can the two fossils be separated by so much time? This kind of basic reasoning happens commonly when constructing a timeline with fossils.
2. Most species that survive have a mechanism of surviving so that they can reproduce - the ultimate goal of any animal. Look at everyone animal now, they all have their unique way of reproducing. For the most part, the balance of prey vs. predator is normal, until of course humans came along. But for the majority of untouched species, there is an equilibrium of sorts. Animals reproduce.

{quote}Just like you have to witness a dead long gone creature giving birth to a creature you think it evolved into. {endquote}

----> Why does my opponent insist with this fallacious claim that something can only be proved when it's directly observed? MANY things are inferred from evidence, such as black holes, gravity, electrons, and evolution via fossils.

====================
CON Claims: Because evolution can't be directly observed, then adherents have to believe aliens exist
====================

Again, my opponent seems to be stuck in this loop of misunderstanding. You don't have to know something exists by direct observation - inference works just as well! As I stated before, we infer from theories and evidence the existence of many commonly held beliefs such as: gravity, black holes, elementary particles (electrons, quarks, etc.)

In addition, he makes it seem as if entertaining the possibility of aliens existing as wrong - it is not. As he said, the universe is mighty big, and there's a good chance that forms of life exist outside of our world, something I never disagreed with. However, science does NOT take the existence of aliens as a fact yet because it hasn't been verified - only seen as a possibility. Evolution is seen not only as a coherent theory, but a fact. In relation to fossils, evolution has many inferred evidence - not everything needs to be directly observed.

The next big paragraph my opponent rambles on concerns the same argument. It is only until the end when he uses a new argument, so we'll go from there:

====================
Radiocarbon dating
====================

My opponent gives several examples of when "radiocarbon dating has gone bad". His attack fails for several reasons:

1. Where are your sources? I can't verify, let alone find, these claims if I have no source to check out the material.
2. Many times, radiometric dating "mistakes" happen when scientists use the wrong method when applying it (there are different types of radiocarbon dating, each with their maximum and minimum range of age they can measure) or if the test results were tainted. To check on these issues, I need to source my opponent has apparently not given.

====================
Comparative anatomy (presumably via fossils)
====================

I'm sorry, but this is quite the most logically incoherent argument I have seen yet. It's really hard to break it down, because it's filled with empty loops of "logic", and I'm afraid to misrepresent his argument. So let's go through some key phrases, and hopefully hit on the right spot.

{quote}You would then say that a frog is related to a toad or another frog which is much smaller and produces deadly posion. Where as you would say that all animals are related in some way because they all have a beating heart. Either that is logic or just plain stupid. {endquote}

----> What's so stupid about it? Comparative anatomy has shown to be great evidence for evolution[1], and was in fact the first piece of evidence that inspired Darwin (the beaks of the finches). If evolution is correct, then species will adapt and gain new variations for whatever helped them have a greater success at reproducing. As such, their closer "relatives" (in an evolutionary tree sense) should share similar physical characteristics. It goes without saying that the closer one species is to another - in the evolutionary sense - the more common physical traits they have. Why do you think monkeys are so similar in physique compared to humans? Fossils are great evidence for this, since they leave the bone structures of animals behind, allowing for good comparative anatomy results[2][3].

The rest of the paragraph is no argument- my opponent basically says "I am right, you are wrong, I am logical, you are not, ergo I win." Come on, this is not even an argument.

{quote}You clearly do not know if a mouse is related to a cammal because you have not witnessed any offspring which has caused there to be either a cammal or a mouse from a none mouse or cammal.{endquote}

----> Not only is a mouse and a camel very far apart evolutionary speaking, evolution does NOT happen in one generation. It happens in a very long line of generations. Enough with the strawmans Godsands. The great majority of the following paragraphs are, and I mean this, complete red herrings. He rambles on about God, how atheists/evolutionists have bad logic, and the sort. There is nothing constructive or holding weight and I'm afraid I have nothing else to refute.

{quote}Your life becomes much more meaningful, worthy and great when you look at life like this. Not meaningless, worthless and petty. {endquote}

----> I, and many other prominent people on this website, are atheists and evolutionists. On the contrary, most of us are having a great life filled with purpose and meaning. I don't know where you're baseless accusations stem from, but they surely don't hold.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent's only arguments are against comparative anatomy and the issue of whether animals who are now fossils reproduced. Everything else is a COMPLETE red herring.

---References---
1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
2. http://encarta.msn.com...
3. http://www.bshs.org.uk...

Ok, lets do this.

"CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth"

That is right, fossils tell nothing of evolution, all you can know is that they once were living creatures. The fossils could have ended up in the ground in many ways. In that there is absolutely no way of even knowing those fossils even lived. If you asume that creatures came about by chance, you are tripped up by the fact that fossils formed by chance and had nothing to do with living creatures at all. And those bones you find of say a T-rex had come about by being shipped here from another planet. - This may sound ubserd, however it at least moves the problem of biogenisis else where for now. You have yet to prove other alien life exists. For in till someone does so, there is no reason to believe in either. Alien life or evolution through the remains of fossils. I explained the equal properties that evolution and alien life share, and you did not really display any reason why I was wrong.

In one to one debates why do you state the obvious? Of course I will seem erroneous to you, as much as you to me.
Anyway, like I was saying about aliens relating to that fossils meaning nothing to evolution or proving any evidence.

If we got a signal from space which stood out from all the other random signals, such as solar wind signals. If earth received an intelligent signal such a the coding of DNA which is, A, G, C and T. If we continously received same old signals from otter space, earth would, with out doubt conclued there is intelligent life. Unless this occurs you are enable to responded to the signal unless you conclude that DNA is a signal from God.

You go on to say that, "Yeah maybe one fossil alone will not explain evolution is fact, but many of similar fossils prove evolution" - It makes no difference, if you have a whole kind of dead creatures in a form of a fossil or one single fossil. Take it like this, fossils are contructed by old bones or young, say if I said one of those bones is one fossil. If I added up all those bones, and if I recived to correct bones to link them up I you get a compleleted fossil. Of course add some rock and a few minerals. And POW! We have a fossil. Now what do I mean by the bones, well its only really to see the different animals wth in one kind. As if the bones were the dones were the creatures in the kind, in that they can evolve into different creatures within their kind. That is called micro evolution. If you want macro evolution, you would need to work out how one bone which is totally ralated only within this particular fossil/creature.

Now I know what you are going to suggest possibly. You would say that the other fossils, say I had two, are different planets. And each bone is a different kind. And that bones link up well, with the joints etc. However since you rejected my possible theory of other life on other planets, you are stuck in solving this. I for one do not believe in other intelligent life. You therefore can not prove to me that fossils have any benefit in proving evolution.

I did not get any reply on my question of trust. - "Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question)" - (Return to my previous round to see the reason why I posed this question)

I am sorry I have left this short, there really is no excuse why I had to leave, I should had done this sooner. I got to go away for the weekend and I would have had failed to reply since the time would had ran out, therefore increasing my chance of losing this really enjoyable debate. However I will attempt to use up my 16,000 charactors when I return on Sunday and onwards.

Take care.

====================
CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth + Aliens
====================

{quote}That is right, fossils tell nothing of evolution, all you can know is that they once were living creatures. The fossils could have ended up in the ground in many ways.{endquote}

---->True, there is a possibility that some fossils may have been the product of something else besides an animal dying then getting preserved. HOWEVER, evidence shows that most fossils are the product of preserved dead animals -- therefore, we can say with good reason that most fossils are reliable sources of evidence for evolution (in the sense that we see the geneaology of animals progressing).

{quote}If you asume that creatures came about by chance, you are tripped up by the fact that fossils formed by chance and had nothing to do with living creatures at all.{endquote}

---->Creatures did not "come up by chance". Abiogenesis may have, but natural selection -- the guiding process for all of life -- is NOT random. Mutations are random, but not natural selection. It's a process that does what it does.

{quote}And those bones you find of say a T-rex had come about by being shipped here from another planet. - This may sound ubserd, however it at least moves the problem of biogenisis else where for now.{endquote}

This is possible, but VERY UNLIKELY. Empirical evidence always has a degree of fallibility in it, but the probability of such ranges. For example - it's very obvious that gravity exists. However, there is a small -- though possible -- chance that invisible fairies are moving things as gravity would. Essentially, there's a small chance that gravity is actually an armada of invisible fairies. Possible? Yes. Probable? Hell no.

{quote}You have yet to prove other alien life exists. For in till someone does so, there is no reason to believe in either. Alien life or evolution through the remains of fossils. I explained the equal properties that evolution and alien life share, and you did not really display any reason why I was wrong.{endquote}

----> Actually I did. I stated in the previous round that while the existence of aliens is POSSIBLE and perhaps PROBABLE, there is no solid evidence for the existence of aliens. Additionally, there is no evidence for an intelligent race of aliens existing. Additionally, there is no evidence for an intelligent race of aliens capable of interstellar transport (to get to Earth), or technology to allow them to hide from our tools of science (cloaking devices - Predator anyone?). All these are possible, but as my previous argument states, it is very unlikely This is why evolution and aliens are NOT on the same playing ground when considering how fossils formed. By virtue of Occam's Razor, it is evolution.

My opponent then goes on to talk about how a fossil may just be the collection of other various bones. However, we have radiometric and anatomist methods to differentiate between different bones for different animals. Is my opponent really saying that an ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENCE, namely paleontology[1], is invalid?

====================
Faulty radiometric dating
====================

{quote}I did not get any reply on my question of trust. - "Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question)" - (Return to my previous round to see the reason why I posed this question){endquote}

----> I probably won't abandon all my trust, but I will be skeptical of future results published by these scientists. HOWEVER, you have failed to refute MY arguments. You have failed to give me the links for the inaccurate dating, so I can prove to you that the reason they were faulty was because the said scientists used the wrong methods for the wrong age range, and other various things. While I won't trust the few scientists who commit grave errors, and even some who commit hoaxes, the majority of the scientific community is something I can "trust".

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent hasn't given much in his previous round. He has avoided my questions/arguments pertaining to radiometric dating, he has failed to see the very clear distinction between "possibility" and "probability", and he has failed to even refute my points about comparative anatomy. With so many arguments left unanswered, and new ones that are as equally inadequte, I urge a vote for PRO.

Thanks for the debate.

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

I am aware that I will not change Pro's veiw with this approach, but those who read this debate. I am also sorry that I did not exstend my last round to it's greatest and have a hair on edge, spine tiggerling conclusion. Sorry Skeptic.

Anyway alway I go.

Fossils are also proof for Noah's flood and more so than evolution. No dinosaur could really climb a tree and when the flood struck the earth the creatures that were mostly mamales could climb trees with much more of a attitude compared to dinosaurs. With nible limbs and claws in such to clumb to higher spots, mamales would seem to have evolved last. Where as the dinosaurs were not agile but were fast runners and also fairly show. Take a look at the Carnotaurus, it has short arms, stronge muscular legs, grew 9m long and 3m tall, not really suitable for climbing at all. To climb anything really, a creature needs to be taller than it is longer. A cat, when standing on its back legs is just that alike with most other mamales such as dogs, bears etc... Birds can simply fly.

Now you maybe wondering why some lizards which according to evolution lived around 300 million years ago? The young could climb very well up trees, away from their parents which would eat them, so why did they die in the flood? Well maybe they didn't, the Komodo dragon is very similiar, and its young once hatched climbs and even lives up in the tree tops. And once when they are large enough the lizards will return to solid ground.

You did not reply that well back to my bones analogy, in that it make complete sense (some spelling) yet you did not have even a decent come back. Alot of your science is based on possibilities and probabilites, not definite facts or any believable science. And neither am I, however I take creation as a belief where as you take it as scientific.

You bluntly commented back to why my philosophy on bones did not work out, I can see it understandably logical, it makes sense that if one bones is a type of creature with in a kind and one fossil is another kind that must result in a different kind from another in real life plays role as another planet. With extraterrestral life of some sort. All alien means is, foreign, from another country or land, planet or universe, whatever. The analogy works, you now need to prove alien life on another planet to suggest all the creatures on earth a related. Therefore making fossils a proven fact that evolution occurs. Unfortunately since this is the last round, you may have to reply in the comment section.

I for one do not believe in alien life. In that there is intelligent beings. Since there will be no way to get any signals from unadvased organisms like kittens and puppies, the chance you will prove evolution is very, very slim. The nearest star to our sun is thought to be 5 light years away.

I have talked about why carbon and radiomatric methods are untrustworthy (look back to round one, my round) Pro did not reply when I found that scientists who were evolutionists carbon dated dinosaur fossils to find out they were only 1000's of years old. So the scientists scrapped the results. - Still no word from that?

I never suggested or thought that the whole feild of science is invalid in the slightest. I will not be obvious and state that I think evolution is not science. Science needs to be tested (micro evolution has) evolution has not been, that being the over millions of years evolution, were it is far too slow to really witness. You base what you find such as fossils and then you plant an imagenation around the facts to support a perfect world to be allow to commit sin in.

"You have failed to give me the links for the inaccurate dating" - I do not take notice of dating methods, only when dating methods go wrong, then I use that as proof for dating methods to be untrustworthy. Here is a link so that you can see what I am speak of. http://www.godrules.net...

So for example, if a scientist predicts an age for a fossil by how deep it is in the dirt, then returns it back to the lab for anaylsis. Say the fossil was prosumed to be 27 million years old, and the dating method tell the scientist the fossil is actually 9 thousand years old. Who do you trust? The scientist or the dating method? So I ignore them both and turn to the Bible where it says, in Romans 1:25,
"The thruth of God will be exchanged for a lie, where people will start to worship the creatures and not the creator.
The Bibel also states to turn away from what man says about the truth. You should flee, as in run and not look back, from lies and sin.

Conclusion: Good debate, thank you. Evermore you failed to bring forth proof of any valid reasons but only mere suggestions in why I as a individual should believe and take evolution as science because there are fossils in the ground. Fossils (Like I said eariler) point more towards Noah's flood rather than evolution, that it makes much more sense that the less nible creature drownd first as they could not reach high ground. And small mamales which have been known to live amung dinosaurs simply drownd based purely on their size. Dinosaurs are large and were not good climbers in the least, even Scoody Doo and the Phantom Menis agrees with me. (Parshly a joke)

Thank you.