The Instigator
jjmd280
Pro (for)
Winning
153 Points
The Contender
fo-shizzle
Con (against)
Losing
54 Points

There is undeniable evidence for the Theory of Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 30 votes the winner is...
jjmd280
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,076 times Debate No: 6572
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (94)
Votes (30)

 

jjmd280

Pro

I will present my argument in the next round. If my opponent wishes to begin, please do - if not, pass it back to me and I shall begin.
fo-shizzle

Con

I would like to begin by saying that there is indeed no absolute proof of evolution.
According to the "Theory of Evolution" all living species of plants and animals evolved in a slow process through random mutations and natural selection over the course of billions of years. A primitive fish developed functional limbs, then walked out on to the land, where it "evolved" a complete skeleton, lungs, and newly-modified olfactory, auditory and sensory systems.
But how, exactly, did these changes take place? What are the mechanisms and required steps? How did the bones form? Or the muscles? Or the nerves, or the auditory and olfactory systems?

Evolutionists have pulled a masterful bait-and-switch on society. They have tricked a segment of the population into believing that evolution is true based on a twisting of the evidence. The simple fact that organisms have within their genome the ability to adapt to changing environments has been misconstrued as a selectionist, populational phenomenon.

For example, the artic fox's fur can change from a mid-summer brown to a pure winter white in just a matter of months. The Jamaican beetle's phenotype changes from yellow-green to orange depending on circumstance. Many spiders also have this morphological ability to show versatility and change colors. Likewise, lizard legs are adjustable on-the-fly according to the length of grass and type of terrain they're in. This stuff happens all over creation: fish can change colors, snakes have plastic/changeable jaw sizes that are dictated by diet. Mice teeth are quickly shaped and molded by diet. Guppies and tadpoles both have the ability to grow larger in the presence of predators. Some lizards, when dietary needs are scarce, can shrink up to 20% of their body size, including the elimination of bone.

Each of these changes simply represents a genome's adaptability. Yet, evolutionists over the decades have mis-characterized many of these adaptive qualities as examples of Darwinian evolution, more specifically selectionist evolution: guppies, cichlids, peppered moths, flies, lizards have all been touted as examples of "evolution" in the field. The reality is, this is just a fantasy of make-believe, compliments of the tooth fairy. But evolutionists have successfully extrapolated an individual organism's inherent genetic capabilities as evidence of radical, across-the-board populational changes that confirm Darwin's nutball hypothesis.

When God created the world, he could have made animals highly adapted to specific environments....but this would have disallowed them from being flexible at all. But instead, He designed animals less specific to any one environment, yet highly adaptive to a wide-range of environments. Of course this is beautifully logical -- and indeed what we see around us.
It is a well-established fact of palaeontology that there is no trace in the earth's strata of the transitional forms that are absolutely essential if Darwin's theory of gradual transformation is to have the slightest credibility.

It is a well-established fact that living forms, whether invertebrates, reptiles or flowering plants, all appear suddenly in the strata, fully-formed, in great variety and with no trace of any intermediate forms that would enable us to link them with each other or any hypothetical ancestors.

Darwin was confident that with the progress of geology, these forms would turn up. But they have not. Darwin's theory is that the diversity of organisms in the living world is the result of natural selection, which has ensured that among countless chance variations in offspring only those have survived that conferred some advantage in the endless struggle for existence.

It is now quite certain that things happened differently

I would like to now adress my opponent to his turn.
thankyou
-foshizzle
Debate Round No. 1
jjmd280

Pro

Thank you, foshizzle, for accepting this debate. And so quickly too, I must add. I enjoy putting to rest the fallacies anti-evolutionists present.

But I am not about to debate someone that doesn't use his own arguments. A simple Google search reveals that your argument is word for word from this website - http://www.topix.com...

A simple citation would have been acceptable.
I do not mind your using the argument, but plagiarism I will not abide by.
fo-shizzle

Con

i can copy and paste as much as i want in the opening statement, for i am simply trying to prove a point that i agree with these statements. dear audience, look how my opponent makes excuses to not re-fute my arguments. This shows that he himself, does not know what to say, or else he would have argued them back, no matter the source. GIven that my opponents has not given any evidence back, and i have given a sufficient amount, no matter the source, This shows my opponent is at loss of words. Thankyou
-foshizzle
Debate Round No. 2
jjmd280

Pro

I am beside myself. I honestly thought my opponent would be bigger than this. My point has been made. This debate is over.
fo-shizzle

Con

again my opponent makes no response to any of my arguments. let me point out to you that this is a lack of unwillingness, and laziness, to not want to reply. I see no determination with my opponent. He chooses to start a debate, and then not even debate it. His excuse is because i used another source. I fail to see this as meaning my arguments as invalid. plus, only actually a segment of my argument was from another source. Seeing this shows me my opponent has no valid argument against anything i have said, meaning he basically forfeits.
dear audience, please look at the logic here. Above i have listed a plentiful amount of good arguments, none which my opponent chooses to re-fute. this just shows, that pride and ignorance is often taken into account withh these types of debates. with this said, acknowledge that this has not been a debate because my opponent refuses to answer where as i have given plenty of evidence.
thankyou
-foshizzle
Debate Round No. 3
jjmd280

Pro

"again my opponent makes no response to any of my arguments."
They aren't your arguments.

"let me point out to you that this is a lack of unwillingness, and laziness, to not want to reply."
Huh? Let me point out to you that that sentence makes absolutely NO sense. I would have loved to reply - to an honest debater. Not a cheater.

"I see no determination with my opponent. He chooses to start a debate, and then not even debate it. His excuse is because i used another source. I fail to see this as meaning my arguments as invalid. plus, only actually a segment of my argument was from another source. Seeing this shows me my opponent has no valid argument against anything i have said, meaning he basically forfeits."
Please examine the source - it is ALL from there, well, EXCEPT FOR YOUR NAME AT THE END. And quit calling it YOUR argument. It isn't.

"dear audience, please look at the logic here. "
I start a debate, My opponent rips off another source word for word. I protest. My opponent defends the indefensible. He continues to appeal for you to ignore his blatant plagiarism. Shameful.

"Above i have listed a plentiful amount of good arguments, none which my opponent chooses to re-fute."
If they were your arguments, I'd be happy to refute. But they aren't, and I am not debating the author of that forum entry. I am debating you.

"this just shows, that pride and ignorance is often taken into account withh these types of debates."
Boy oh boy - Pride (I am not wrong, I can steal and post anything I want.) Ignorance (Plagiarism is OK!)

"with this said, acknowledge that this has not been a debate because my opponent refuses to answer where as i have given plenty of evidence."
No - it has not been a debate due to your blatant dishonesty. That's why.

thankyou
You're very welcome.
fo-shizzle

Con

MY OPPONENT-"They aren't your arguments"

yes they are. A posted them on this site, agreeing with every one of them. If any one else who had put them in different words, they would be the same argument, but put differently in a different order. Meaning no matter what the argument is the same, its just written differently. So i CAN say these are my arguments.

MY OPPONENT-"I would have loved to reply - to an honest debater. Not a cheater."

How did i cheat? by posting good arguments? I am sure that you would call that cheating because you cannot argue against them. I am sure if you would have loved to reply, it shouldn't matter who the argument is from, obviously i have the same opinion as the author making them my arguments as well. But obviously my opponent was at loss of words after reading this, knowing there was nothing he could say against them.

MY OPPONENT- "I start a debate, My opponent rips off another source word for word. I protest. My opponent defends the indefensible. He continues to appeal for you to ignore his blatant plagiarism. Shameful."

Ripping off? i would say posting an argument supporting the things they have said, would be more like helping them, not ripping them off.... AND again its not word for word. look at the last four paragraphs. Shameful? you wish to accuse me of being shameful, when you yourself started the debate and choose not to argue against it? that is the very essence of shame my friend. not arguing a good argument. That just shows how good this argument actually was, if my opponent can't even refute it.

MY OPPONENT-"If they were your arguments, I'd be happy to refute. But they aren't, and I am not debating the author of that forum entry. I am debating you."

NO actually you aren't debating me. you have not refuted my arguments once in this debate therefor not a debate. And if a agree with the author of this forum, and am just saying every thing he has said, then you are in fact debating me, seeing as i agree with everything the author has to say. Can i say that any thing you would have said would be taboo, just because its probably like what darwin would have said? no that indeed would be ignorance as you have shown.

MY OPPONENT- "Pride (I am not wrong, I can steal and post anything I want.) Ignorance (Plagiarism is OK!)"

Pride (uh oh this guys posted some really good arguments... how about i just dont argue them back and accuse him for other things because his arguments are too good to deefend against...)
Ignorance (whatever, i am just going to quit now, because my opponent has some good sources i dont wish to fend off)

MY OPPONENT- "NO it has not been a debate due to your blatant dishonesty. That's why."

Blatant dishonesty? meaning me using another source to support my case? oh thats dishonest alright. Well in that case i am sorry for posting arguments so good, that you could not even refute them, and for making you look bad in front of everyone who views this debate.

I would like all viewers to read the first argument i have made and vote according to the weight of this argument i have made. also acknowledge that my opponent made no rebuttal what-so-ever. thankyou
fo-shizzle
Debate Round No. 4
94 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Pro pulled it off and now it's dead... good.
Posted by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
haha how in the world is the con this close to winning??? what a cheater lol
Posted by hatgirl 5 years ago
hatgirl
As you rightly mentioned, Your point about the voters being mostly "under 17" is invalid, because 25-34 year olds said the same thing: therefore, we can probably conclude that there was little correlation between age and vote. Also, we have no idea that those who voted con did so for the same reason that I mentioned earlier.

I feel like you are slipping in rude comments to your responses, and I do not appreciate the slights.
"your attempt at wittiness"

That aside, I think that the main reason I was annoyed about your comment on an age group for voting and debating was because I never said anything about how I was voting, nor was I part of the Evolutionary theory debate. I merely commented on it, and suddenly there was someone suggesting that, because of a *comment*, there should be age limits on *voting* and *debating*.

Also, though you have made clear it was a misunderstanding, I felt that you were suggesting that we not take people seriously because of their age.

Thanks for working this out.
Bye for now!

Hatgirl
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
And 25-34, apparently...
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
"it makes me really frustrated when adults ignore my ideas, or say that I am not mature enough to do something."
-#1, I didn't say that, and #2- the idea I disagreed with (not ignored, nor said you are not mature enough to state it) was your attempt at wittiness. Indeed the idea itself was immature, though now you admit you made it jokingly. A little less than half the voters agree with you, even though the idea is obviously irrational. Most of those are "under 17".
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
I haven't read anything you've said that is remotely insulting.

"Do you remember being a kid?"
-I remember almost everything since the age of 3.

"Do you remember when people who were older than you didn't take you seriously *just because of your age*?"
-No. I remember my principal since I was in Kindergarten referring to me by my last name, though. I guess I've always been a bit of an old head.

"you were only trying to demonstrate that sometimes kids are immature"
-That wasn't my point. You're missing one thing- I supervise men twice my age and deal with kindergarten issues every day. The point I was making was the level of rationalization related to age. I never referred to anyone as "kids" because that is not a common practice of mine. If you look at my writings, I quite regularly say "older" or "younger people", "more experienced" vs. "less experienced", etc. If I am forced to use "kids" in the context of what I am saying, I first apologize before attempting to make my point. I refer to my own children as "kids", but rarely do I refer to any other people as "kids" as it was not how I was spoken to when I was a child (see kindergarten reference).

"Have you ever made a mistake?"
-Of course, but to suggest the mistakes an adult makes are not more deliberate or foolhardy is to ignore the experience that could have prevented that mistake, the wisdom disregarded in making that mistake, etc., while most mistakes younger people make are part of a learning process.

"In your adulthood, have you ever done or said something that you regret"
-No.

"My point is, it isn't only kids"
-It is so only "kids". Age isn't what makes you a "kid", but age is definitely one of the greatest contributors to immaturity.

"that is no cause to believe that kids should not be allowed to debate or vote just like anyone else"
-Of course that is from your point of view, but I prefer an age limit similar to the age limit in voting in American politics.
Posted by hatgirl 5 years ago
hatgirl
Trying to be tolerant here . . .

Listen. Do you remember being a kid? Do you remember when people who were older than you didn't take you seriously *just because of your age*?? I understand, here, that (at least initially) you were only trying to demonstrate that sometimes kids are immature, but now I feel like this has gone too far. Have you ever made a mistake? In your adulthood, have you ever done or said something that you regret, and it now feels "childish"? My point is, it isn't only kids! I realize that there are instances when an adult does have information or experience that, perhaps, a child does not, but that is no cause to believe that kids should not be allowed to debate or vote just like anyone else! Mistakes happen with everyone, kids and adults alike, and it makes me really frustrated when adults ignore my ideas, or say that I am not mature enough to do something.

I tried to be really honest here, and give you a fair idea of how I am feeling. I apologize in advance if you feel insulted by any of this, but please, please just try to put yourself in my shoes and understand why I was offended.

Thanks for listening,
Hatgirl
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
If younger people aren't mature enough to know they may not have the capacity of their elders, then that just proves my point. I'm sorry you are offended by that, and you "may" not fit the bill, but it WAS your statement that caused this argument, and maybe it wasn't due to your age, but it is true nonetheless.

As for Tatarize, Bricheze makes a good point. Had the opponent made that argument, I would agree... however, he did not make ANY argument. Plagiarizing is not making an argument, and not responding to plagiarism doesn't qualify as not making an argument in the context of fair debate. In any other format Con would have been automatically disqualified. The only reason Debate.org does not evolve into having checks and balances on it's voting, debating, etc. is because it is run by someone who no longer wants it.
Posted by hatgirl 5 years ago
hatgirl
Wow, I'm really sorry I started this whole thing--
For the record:
a) I voted pro
b) it was just a joke, pointing out that technicality, of course I agree with Mangani that what was meant was "unreasonably undeniable"
c) I do think that Mangani's earlier slight about the age group for voting was both inappropriate and uncalled for.
Posted by Bricheze 5 years ago
Bricheze
Look this is a DEBATE not the 'point out a technicality and win game' did the opponent argue in that manner know? No. Does the opponent deserve to win in that manner? No. Does the opponent deserve to win, based on his arguments? No!

Therefore you should have voted pro, unless if you thought con had the right to plagiarize.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 Derek.Gunn 5 years ago
Derek.Gunn
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 bigg3r_trigg3r 5 years ago
bigg3r_trigg3r
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 Labrat228 5 years ago
Labrat228
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 TARLFURY 5 years ago
TARLFURY
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 lames_27 5 years ago
lames_27
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Bitz 5 years ago
Bitz
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 Galiban 5 years ago
Galiban
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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 vorxxox 5 years ago
vorxxox
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 5 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
jjmd280fo-shizzleTied
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