The Instigator
creationist1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
StevenDixon
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
StevenDixon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,581 times Debate No: 32714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

creationist1

Pro

Okay, first, how do you explain the grand canyon? How can evolution take place if the genetic code prevents it? If Dino's are extinct, that how come they found a baby one in a whale's stomach? How do you explain symbioses? How did humans become so far advanced from other creatures? How do you explain human morals.
StevenDixon

Con

I would like to point out how odd it is the debate topic deals with creation having more evidence for evolution and you ask the following question

1"Okay, first, how do you explain the grand canyon?"

This has nothing to do with evolution, but I'll entertain you. The grand canyon was created by a combination of shifting plates (see plate tectonics) and well known phenomenon called "erosion". If you hadn't noticed there's water in it...over time this water erodes the rocks, carving out the canyon. Here's a short video that gives a brief explanation

I'll now address your questions that either deal with evolution or potentially contradict the timeline.

2."How can evolution take place if the genetic code prevents it? "

It doesn't. I don't believe I need to offer anything further on this until you support the assertion that genetic code prevents it.

3."If Dino's are extinct, that how come they found a baby one in a whale's stomach?"

This question gave me a chuckle, I googled it to see what you were talking about and not one site popped up with this claim...Can you provide a credible source?

4."How do you explain symbioses?"
A random mutation occurred that allowed for a symbiotic relationship, this was beneficial so it was passed on.

5."How did humans become so far advanced from other creatures?"
Culture and a more efficient brain, really humans were just living in tribes like apes for hundreds of thousands of years until the invention of language and agriculture. Almost everything we observe in humans is also observable in other mammals, such as tool use, family, ethics, etc.

6"How do you explain human morals."

Love, empathy, and culture. I think the benefits from these things are obvious and it's clear why evolution can easily account for them.

How does creationism account for the observed nested hierarchy in species? What evidence is there for creationism? How does creationism explain the fusion in human chromosome 2? Why is it there?
Let's keep in mind that the topic is "creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution" and you are pro meaning the burden of proof is on you. So far you have done nothing to support creationism and you have not given any evidence against evolution.

As a token of good sportsmanship I'll offer this website that may help you in proving evolution to be a hoax
http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 1
creationist1

Pro

http://s8int.com...
here is your link, it was the first thing that came up. did you really Google it? DNA prevents evolution because there is no way that an animal could have gotten DNA plans for, say, lungs instead of gills or vica versa. without DNA plans for something, the organism has no way to create it. I didn't quite understand what you said at the end there, so could you clarify? mutations, if you mean what I think you mean, doesn't hold water. mutations are almost always negative, and also usually make the organism sterile. there is very little if not no evidence for evolution, which is a little evidence for creation, since it is the only "creditable" theory for hoe the world began besides creation. God is the only way that anything could be alive right now. because of...dirt. you're laughing, admit it. it sound absurd, yes, but it is actually a valid point. for any organism to survive, you must have dirt with dead things already in it to provide the nutrients. to have dead things you must have live things. to have live things you must have dead things in the soil..... and so on. it does sound funny, even to me, but read it couldn't just happen. if you want more on the DNA thing, just read it couldn't just happen as well, but I think I explained it fairly well. 6 you didn't explain very well. I think I know what you mean about nested hierarchy, but to avoid making a fool of myself could you explain it in a little further detail?
StevenDixon

Con

The link provided says this about the evidence for the existence of the so called "Dinosaur found the in the stomach of a whale"

"Despite the fact that Caddy has resisted capture, more than enough evidence suggests that the creature does exist. The number of sightings tends to prove his existence, and the list of people who have spotted him include civic dignitaries and respected citizens."

Under this line of reasoning there is evidence for the existence of the following mythological creatures and monster: the lochness monster, the chupacabra, the Jewpacabra, Bigfoot, Vampires, mothman, Batboy, etc, etc(But after reading the site further, they probably believe all of those things do exist). If you're going to claim that a dinosaur was found in the whale of a stomach you need to provide actual evidence, not some goofy website making spectacular claims without providing evidence other than some black and white pictures of gook.

"DNA prevents evolution because there is no way that an animal could have gotten DNA plans for, say, lungs instead of gills or vica versa. without DNA plans for something, the organism has no way to create it."

Blanket, unsupported assertion.

"I didn't quite understand what you said at the end there, so could you clarify?"

Using the theory of evolution it was predicted that one of our chromosomes had to be the result of a fusion of two. The reasoning behind this prediction was that the other great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes while we have 23, if we truly share a common ancestor then somewhere along the line there had to have been a fusion, if not...there was something the theory of evolution couldn't account for. Sure enough, the fusion was found. Here's a short video explaining such Under the creationist "model", how do you explain this prediction? Do you just explain it as "well he made it that way just because!"?

"mutations, if you mean what I think you mean, doesn't hold water. mutations are almost always negative, and also usually make the organism sterile."

This is simply not true, the majority of mutations are neutral. If mutations almost always make an organism sterile then almost every single being on earth would be sterile because every time reproduction occurs, mutation occurs. Every time... Beneficial mutations are constantly observed, for instance bacteria that can digest Nylon, the emergence of MRSA, sickle cell in humans as well as immunities to HIV.

"there is very little if not no evidence for evolution"

The prediction of the fusion in human chromosome 2, The nested hierarchy demonstrated by both the fossil record and genetic evidence, the fact we've observed speciation, endogenous retroviral patterns that demonstrate the same nested hierarchy.

"which is a little evidence for creation, since it is the only "creditable" theory for hoe the world began besides creation."

You haven't demonstrated that it's credible nor have you demonstrated that it's an actual scientific theory.

"God is the only way that anything could be alive right now. because of...dirt. you're laughing, admit it. it sound absurd, yes, but it is actually a valid point. for any organism to survive, you must have dirt with dead things already in it to provide the nutrients."

You're right, I'm laughing. Instead of making blanket statements, could you know....try to actually support them? Just saying something is true doesn't mean it is. Many organisms can survive without "dirt", not all organisms feed off of other organisms. Even if every single creature required dirt, all that means is every creature needs dirt, this in no way suggests god is responsible.

"6 you didn't explain very well. I think I know what you mean about nested hierarchy, but to avoid making a fool of myself could you explain it in a little further detail?"

I think I explained 6 really well. Moral codes exist because they're beneficial, things such as love, empathy, and culture are responsible for the arrival of moral systems.

Here's an explanation of nested hierarchy
"Common ancestry is conspicuous.
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies"rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life"s hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large "box" entitled: living organisms."-http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I would like to illustrate that my opponent has only made statements of pure conjecture that are not supported by evidence. He has not shown one piece of evidence for creationism nor has he provided any against evolution.
Debate Round No. 2
creationist1

Pro

I need to give a little info about the beginning of the argument. on the last debate I was shoot down so to speak by saying that Dino's existed. everyone said, "so what". so this is so what. evolution puts Dino's at the bottom of the geological column, in the Jurassic age. if dinos really do exist, that this takes away the cretability of the column, and really hurts evolution. here are some links for the existence of dinos today:

http://www.google.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.skygaze.com...
http://www.zimbio.com...
http://cryptid.hubpages.com...

i think that is enough links, but i can get more if you want. :) i agree that site wan't very good. ( the one about the whale stomach) my computer doesn't have sound, so i didn't wach that vidio you put.
http://www.allansweeney.com...
http://appleofgodseye.wordpress.com...
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.wikihow.com...

some of these other links suport what i said about DNA. others are just scientific evidence against evolution. your "proof" about fusion doesn't seem to be much profe at all. to i look like an ape, (: and i have chromosomes like an ape. so? you didn't give a link to provide evidence for what you said about mutations. my source for what i said is it couldn't just happen.
http://www.christianbook.com...
there is a link to the book. here is another site that explains it.
http://creationwiki.org...(Talk.Origins)

just because something looks like another thing doesn't mean evolution is true. say a builder wanted to make two houses. would they look the same? partaly. are they? are they desended from each other? no. it's a silly analigy, but think about it all living things look a little bit alike. some more than others. so? i think i have given evidence against evolution in this.

last but not least i would like to give a "tiny bit of evidence" for creation. if you can read through it, and disprove it, i will be greatly inpressed. happy reading. :)
http://www.icr.org...
StevenDixon

Con

I would like to point out that this was supposed to be a debate between me and pro, not a debate between me and unsupported Creationist websites.

My problem with your claim that "Dino's" currently exist is not that it is irrelevant but that it is completely unsupported and is contrary to all current evidence we have.

Instead of directly disputing every single claim the website makes I'm going to link a few and illustrate how they are not credible. I feel this will shed light on the reliability of the websites and how much Pro actually cares about giving correct information. I'll let the viewers be the judge.

First link given " http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org...;

This website has articles for all of the following, supporting their existence or validity
"UFO-Fasterwalkers" "Ancient Aliens" "Aliens living among us" "Hollow Earth Theory" "Aliens and Demons" "Moon Rising: The nasa cover up" and the worst.....two flying dinosaur species in papua new guinea..... I would suggest everyone goes and watches the video if you want a good chuckle.

"http://www.livescience.com...;
The next linked article lists the Lochness monster as evidence that dinosaurs still exist. Lets keep in mind vast sweeps of lake Lochness have been done and not one shred of evidence for the Lochness monster has been found.

I feel because of the Pro's history of linking sites that aren't credible it would unfair for me to have to go through every site and dissect every claim....so I'm not going to do that.

"some of these other links suport what i said about DNA. others are just scientific evidence against evolution. your "proof" about fusion doesn't seem to be much profe at all. to i look like an ape, (: and i have chromosomes like an ape. so? you didn't give a link to provide evidence for what you said about mutations. my source for what i said is it couldn't just happen."

If you wish, you can quote the website for specific things you wish for me to address. Because of your history of posting sources that aren't credible, I'm not going to address every single one. Keep in mind this was supposed to be a debate between me and you, not me and every creationist website that has ever existed. Sources are supposed to be used to support your argument not make them for you.

The finding of the fusion illustrates the prediction power of evolution. Just explaining the prediction power away as "that's not proof" is not a proper rebuttle. It's not proof, it's a piece of evidence. I gave real examples of beneficial mutations, do you really not know about the existence of MRSA and sickle cell? This site has the source studies for the claim that mutations are neutral, at the bottom. I suggest giving it a read all of the way through for your sake http://www.talkorigins.org...

"just because something looks like another thing doesn't mean evolution is true. say a builder wanted to make two houses. would they look the same? partaly. are they? are they desended from each other? no. it's a silly analigy, but think about it all living things look a little bit alike. some more than others. so? i think i have given evidence against evolution in this."

I have never claimed that because other things look like each other that means evolution is true, It's the unique combination of character traits that create a predictable nested hierarchy. Houses can't reproduce so they can't descend from each other. The analogy isn't just silly, it's horrible. You still have not given one shred of evidence against evolution.
Debate Round No. 3
creationist1

Pro

unsupported? do you know about the ICR at all?they back what they say. contact them. okay, I guess you want more links about the Dino's.
http://www.lightningshock.com...
this one is more explanatory than Prof :)
http://sunandshield.blogspot.com...
http://www.infobarrel.com...
http://www.peje.co.za...
http://www.disclose.tv...

if you still want more, ask away. okay, so a few might be faulty. so? you can't ignore the evidence.
on your next point. fine, here is my argument: there is evidence for creation. here's the site.
http://www.icr.org...
one site. if you do nothing else, read it.

the sickle cell was a hoax. I'm not going to give a link, because it's common knowledge. or it better be! I stooped reading that link, because it's out of date. the moth's illustrate micro-evolution, not macro. I Goggled MRSA, and I don't see how that is good evidence, or evidence at all. a boil?

now have I given evidence against evolution?
http://www.icr.org...
how about now?
StevenDixon

Con

Yes, the ICR is a creationist website that is based upon A-priori belief in god. Instead of basing their "theories" on evidence they base the evidence upon their previously held beliefs, and anything to the contrary is ignored or dropped. Why should I contact them? You do realize this is a debate between me and you and not every creationist website that has ever existed right?

I don't want more links to people claiming dinosaurs exist, I want links DEMONSTRATING that they exist. Personal experience and vague pictures with horrible quality are not evidence of anything other than personal experience and horrible pictures.

Once again lets examine the first link you give
http://www.lightningshock.com...

The greatest part about you linking this is that one of the tags is SATIRE. You posted a link of someone making fun of you....Thanks for helping my point.

"if you still want more, ask away. okay, so a few might be faulty. so?"

I would like this statement to be used to vote conduct on my behalf. He's admitting that his sources are not credible yet...is still linking them as credible to support his point.

Instead of giving an argument my opponent once again links a site to debate for him rather than supporting his points. In order to show that this site is not credible I will debunk a few of the claims, from this we can conclude the site is not credible. If there is something specific you think is evidence and want it addressed then you yourself can bring it up.
http://www.icr.org...

"Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man."

Creationism is not a scientific model nor are public schools allowed to teach it. Implying that both theories are in public school curriculum is a deceptive way of trying to give them equal footing or make them appear equal. This brings the credibility of the site immediately into question.

This will be the last point I address from this website because I believe it will demonstrate that they are not supporting their claims that creationism is backed by evidence

"II. Life Was Suddenly Created."

Here is their support

"Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record"
No it doesn't, The earliest forms of life according to the fossil record are single celled organism, these moved on to multicellular, then on and on. No where does the fossil record demonstrate that rabbits and single celled organisms appeared at a relatively similar time, nor does this page do anything to support that claim.

"and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds."
Duh, this isn't evidence against evolution. In order for their to be no gaps every single species that ever existed would have had to be fossilized, this is not reasonable to expect, fossilization is does not occur at a rate high enough for such a thing to happen. This is not evidence for creationism nor against evolution.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed."

According to this reasoning snowflakes can not exist, obviously they do...this is because the law pertains to closed systems, contrary to what they claim.

At this point it's clear that the site you have given is not scientific nor is it credible.

"the sickle cell was a hoax. I'm not going to give a link, because it's common knowledge. or it better be! I stooped reading that link, because it's out of date. the moth's illustrate micro-evolution, not macro. I Goggled MRSA, and I don't see how that is good evidence, or evidence at all. a boil?"

This is actually the first time I've ever heard a person claim that Sickle Cell is a hoax. No doctor on the planet believes such a thing, as evidence for it's existence I will provide the link to credible medical sites as well as university sites.
http://www.webmd.com...
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
http://www.childrenshospital.org...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sicklecell.howard.edu...
http://www.bu.edu...
http://www.chg.duke.edu...

I would like to illustrate that by admitting micro evolution happens my opponent has conceded his point about there being no beneficial mutations, micro evolution is adaptation due to natural selection and random beneficial mutations. Macro evolution is the same exact thing over a longer period of time. In order for one to deny macro evolution they would have to demonstrate a young earth, unless that's done Macro evolution is just micro over a longer period.

Mrsa is a form of staph that is immune to Methicillin due to a mutation. It wasn't around until mid 2000's. This is another example of a benificial mutation.

I would also like to point out that my opponent did not address my point about human chromosome 2 and it's significance. From this we can conclude that it is clearly evidence for evolution. While the burden is not on me, I have given evidence for evolution being true while my opponent has not given any evidence for creation being true nor has he provided any evidence against evolution.

I would just like to remind everyone that my opponent thinks Sickle Cell is a hoax.
Debate Round No. 4
creationist1

Pro

Evolution is based off a believe in no God. Evolutionists are the ones who drop contrary evidence. You still don't know that sickle cell was a hoax. they covered it up. Qopel even said it was true that it was a hoax. what do you want. to go to a zoo and see a Dino. or a picture taken by a pro. these people only had their phones on them. you don't walk around with a super good camera just because you might happen to see a dinosaur. you didn't quote the rest of what I said. there is still a ton of evidence. the only other evidence you could ask for is one in a zoo. the fossil record? it's actually no transitional forms. now the last person I said this too gave me a wiki site as evidence. all it had was pics. of extinct animals. go figure. if it really takes 100 million years for something to evolve, and everything on earth has evolved, than we should have evidence of them evolving. do we? no. all "transitional forms" can be put into two categories: huge leaps, or tiny leaps. obviously. but, these forms, if they have a set of them in order, the differences are huge, and can be explained as hole new species. others, like forms they claim are between apes and us are 1) half way imagined. I know they don't come in perfect condition, but they once made a plaster skeleton for a tooth they found that was like the perfect transitional form. it ended up that the tooth was a pig tooth. or 2) are just extent species of ape.
snow flakes? really? there can if God made a perfectly ordered universe, and you do realize that that is a scientific law. its not dumb, its proven. the sickle cell as evidence for evolution was a hoax. no, there is a difference between micro and macro. micro means that something adapted in a small way, within the plans that it's DNA provide. macro evolution goes outside of the plans that DNA has. say, an animal goes from sea dwelling to land dwelling. where would its DNA get the information to make lungs?

you are really set on that chromosome thing. fine, does this explain it?
http://lukeplant.me.uk...

oh sickle cell its self isn't a hoax, the idea of it as evidence of evolution, not so much. this should explain it to all you who haven't heard. http://www.creationbc.org...

mutations can also be evidence for creation. this explains that statement. http://www.icr.org...

tons of evidence from catastrophes on earth are largely contradictory to universalism.
http://www.icr.org...
I think I have made my case, however, if anyone is not satisfied, here is one last link, exposing evidence for creation.
http://www.creationsciencetoday.com...
StevenDixon

Con

"Evolution is based off a believe in no God. Evolutionists are the ones who drop contrary evidence. You still don't know that sickle cell was a hoax. they covered it up. Qopel even said it was true that it was a hoax. "

No it's not. There's many prominent biologists that are christian and accept the theory of evolution. See Kenneth Millers book Finding Darwin's God as well as head of the human genome project Francis Collins. Biologists don't throw out evidence contrary to the theory of evolution, if a biologist could show that evolution isn't true they would win a vast array of awards and be remembered forever. You've done nothing to show that sickle cell is a hoax, I doubt Qopel said that but even if he did, a debater on this site is not a source.

"what do you want. to go to a zoo and see a Dino. or a picture taken by a pro. these people only had their phones on them. you don't walk around with a super good camera just because you might happen to see a dinosaur. you didn't quote the rest of what I said."

I would like evidence not urban legends and people trying to make a buc off of photoshop.

"the fossil record? it's actually no transitional forms. now the last person I said this too gave me a wiki site as evidence. all it had was pics. of extinct animals. go figure. if it really takes 100 million years for something to evolve, and everything on earth has evolved, than we should have evidence of them evolving. do we? no. all "transitional forms" can be put into two categories: huge leaps, or tiny leaps. obviously. but, these forms, if they have a set of them in order, the differences are huge, and can be explained as hole new species. others, like forms they claim are between apes and us are 1) half way imagined. I know they don't come in perfect condition, but they once made a plaster skeleton for a tooth they found that was like the perfect transitional form. it ended up that the tooth was a pig tooth. or 2) are just extent species of ape."

Yes, we do have evidence of them evolving...See the nested hierarchy that's demonstrated through genetic evidence, endogenous retroviral patterns and then is corroborated by the fossil record, everything genetic evidence suggests is complimented by the fossil record. They don't just pick up a fossil and make a guess about it, for instance Ida was studied and scrutinized for 2 years before they released news of it. Several types of dating methods running on different clocks are used to determine the age, they don't just guess. How do you explain why certain species have unique combinations of traits while others don't? God just made it that way? This has no explanatory power, evolution explains why this happens perfectly.

"snow flakes? really? there can if God made a perfectly ordered universe, and you do realize that that is a scientific law. its not dumb, its proven. the sickle cell as evidence for evolution was a hoax. no, there is a difference between micro and macro. micro means that something adapted in a small way, within the plans that it's DNA provide. macro evolution goes outside of the plans that DNA has. say, an animal goes from sea dwelling to land dwelling. where would its DNA get the information to make lungs?"

That scientific law applies to this universe whether god created it or not, snowflakes are an example of order coming from disorder and we constantly see it happen and know exactly why, this example is to illustrate that it only applies to closed systems...we're in an open system meaning order comes from disorder all of the time. Sickle cell is a mutation that gave a beneficial trait, it's common in area's with a high rate of maleria because those with it lived on and were more likely to reproduced while those without died at a higher rate. It's a classic example of evolution. Micro means something adapted over a small amount of time, macro evolution is something adapting over a long period of time. We know the earth is billions of years old and life has been here for billions of years...so it has adapted over long periods of time. Mutations constantly change the "plans" of dna, a wall where there is no continued change has never been found...on the contrary every single reproduction hosts an abundance of mutations.

Mutations changing the swim bladder were beneficial for fish because it allowed them to scour land for food and resources. Eventually this led to the lung. Over a long period of time natural selection and mutations add up. Here's a modern day example of something similar

"you are really set on that chromosome thing. fine, does this explain it?
http://lukeplant.me.uk......

oh sickle cell its self isn't a hoax, the idea of it as evidence of evolution, not so much. this should explain it to all you who haven't heard. http://www.creationbc.org......

mutations can also be evidence for creation. this explains that statement. http://www.icr.org......

tons of evidence from catastrophes on earth are largely contradictory to universalism.
http://www.icr.org......
I think I have made my case, however, if anyone is not satisfied, here is one last link, exposing evidence for creation.
http://www.creationsciencetoday.com...;

You first link fails to understand why chromosome 2 is such strong evidence for evolution. He claims that you could also explain it with god....no duh, you could explain anything with god that's not the point. Using the theory of evolution we PREDICTED the fusion, using creationism there would be absolutely no reason to suggest that there's a fusion, we never would have looked if creationism was the standard model.

I already explain why Sickle cell is a classic example of evolution.

The site given claiming that mutations can be evidence for creation misrepresents the theory of aging. The theory of aging applies to an accumulation of damaged Dna that is unrepaired, not additional mutations or dna.

Once again, sources are supposed to illustrate and support your arguments, not make them for you.

I don't know what universalism is but large catastrophes don't contradict evolution, that's just absurd. Large catastrophes can actually speed up the process.

The burden of proof was on pro. My opponent has not provided one ounce of evidence for his claims and he barely even made an argument, instead he tried to have me argue with an abundance of creationist and conspiracy websites that lacked any sort of credibility. I have provided evidence for the theory of evolution, he has provided none against nor has he supported creationism.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
I got good laughs out of this one. But i do have to give it to pro for standing up for his beliefs. I defiantly respect that much.
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
I agree, he was arguing that the earth was flat(according to your analogy) and didn't demonstrate it...this is why you vote for me!!! yaayyyyyyyyyy
Posted by Raymundo1028 4 years ago
Raymundo1028
Getting sick of this debate. There is no debate over the truth of it. It would be Like a debate over if the earth was flat or round
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
Oops forgot the link the video, this is an example of what early lungs would have been like They evolved from the swim bladder. I'm a goof for forgetting to put it in ><
Posted by Skeptikitten 4 years ago
Skeptikitten
This debate is so one-sided I almost pity Pro. Then again, he did start a debate he is WAY out of his league in.
Posted by creationist1 4 years ago
creationist1
so you have herd of it!
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
The sickle cell hoax was obviously perpetrated by the illuminate/reptilians.
Posted by creationist1 4 years ago
creationist1
i get it. :) that's hilarious! by the way qopel, you gave no evidence of evolution. that makes it my win fair and square. chalenge me again, and we can have another go. Jesus Freak? thank you. :)
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Enjoy your un-earned win. Jesus Freak
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
It was a joke. Brendan Frazer is the horrible actor in movies such as furry vengeance and the mummy.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
creationist1StevenDixonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately I must side with Con. Pro really needs to work on debate skills as well as grammar and source citing.
Vote Placed by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
creationist1StevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered no arguments of his own, instead just pasting a bunch of links. Better than just plagiarizing, but still bad practice. Con sufficiently refuted Pro's sources and showed why evolution has greater explanatory power. I never thought of sickle cell as evidence for microevolution before, but I think it is a very strong argument.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
creationist1StevenDixonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is out of his mind. He does not know anything about what he is talking about, He is not smart enough to debate.
Vote Placed by FrackJack 4 years ago
FrackJack
creationist1StevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was awful. He didn't even really make any arguments and just pointed to his sources.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 4 years ago
Demauscian
creationist1StevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided arguments and successfully refuted all claims from pro