The Instigator
quadking8
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
UberCryxic
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

evolution is not true!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,032 times Debate No: 920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (14)

 

quadking8

Pro

Evolutionists theory of how we were created, or evolved is than millions or even billions of years of go. dinosaurs ruled the earth. and one day a meteor crashed into the earth. destroying all dinosaurs, and living plan and animals. the meteors impact crated heat and fire, etc... which put pressure and force ipon a rock and somehow forem a living cell. which evolved into a larger cell, and finally into human, Millions of years later!!! now this might not be your view at it but lets talk. this theory is completely wrong. we did not form from a rock. think about it. heat and friction, and pressure n rocks formed a living cell!! My question is why doesn't still happen today. if that theory is possible, than why isn't there a godzila, or some other monumental animal alive today?? huh did you ever think a bout that. every thing you guys thought of happened way back then and you have no evidence up backing it up. Now The theory that God created the universe in His creative, and intulectual design is true. my evidence- is this. talk to me if you want to find out. cause i'm not gonna waist my time if no one is gonna read this!!! come debate me!!!
UberCryxic

Con

Greetings quadking and other readers, I am looking forward to a thoughtful and interesting debate. Let's begin!

I will thoroughly address many of the causal concerns you have with evolution, but first let me correct your terminology. In the media and in public discourse, we often see evolution referred to as a "theory," a term which some people disparage. Scientists, a bit confused and perplexed, then proceed to explain to relative neophytes in the field that evolution as a scientific theory is imbued with strong explanatory and predictive power, all rooted in seemingly endless data and observations. That's all well and good, but it's not necessary. Why? Well, evolution is not really a scientific theory. It's more of a natural process, kind of like tides or soil erosion. A notable characteristic of a scientific theory is that it provides a mechanism for how a series of natural events transpire. Evolution is the event itself; the mechanism, according to Charles Darwin, is natural selection. That's the scientific theory: natural selection, although one can think of it as a natural process as well. This issue over word usage is critical because evolution as a natural process was conceptualized even in ancient times, well before Darwin in the nineteenth century! Evolution as a process, when loosely described, can be regarded as the general biological and physiological changes that occur among many generations of organisms over time. A more detailed explanation will follow in the next few paragraphs. In modern times, scientists have combined natural selection with Mendelian genetics to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the predication for the entire field of biology, a sentiment echoed by one of the doyens of American biology in the twentieth century, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who argued that evolution made sense of the field: "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole" (excerpt from "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution").

Now I will address your causal and ontological objections to evolution, as well as any related statements. In perusing your introduction, I have noticed that you are somewhat unfamiliar with the central propositions of evolution. A good question here might be: what is evolution? That is, what are the mechanistic processes involved in evolution? I feel that it is necessary to ask these questions because otherwise you would be replying to a version of evolution that you have concocted yourself; in other words, you are replying to strawmen arguments. Evolution can be simply described as follows: Genes mutate, individuals are selected, and populations evolve. This simple statement encapsulates much of the dynamism found in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Another way of saying this is that macroevolutionary effects - the physiological changes in populations - merely result from the accumulation of a myriad of microevolutionary interactions - gene mutations and selections. That's the "heart," if you will, of evolution: a variety of mutations and long-term adaptations, among other things, result in the physiological changes of populations. This last part about populations is essential: the populations evolve, not the individuals! The biological and physiological components of individual organisms do not change in their lifetime; that change often, though not always, requires time, but it happens among populations. Please understand that evolutionary theory is far more complex than what I've just outlined, but now you have some basic idea of how evolution happens.

Your post mentions several things that are not related to evolution or evolutionary theory, hence my attempts at elucidating the subject. For example, the comet crashing on Earth and wiping out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, though obviously that event had an enormous impact on our planet's evolutionary history. Additionally, your series of events are confused and downright contradictory. You state that there were dinosaurs, which were living organisms, before the comet hit Earth, then claim that the comet somehow created the very first living organisms (cells) that eventually led to humans. Those conceptions are antithetical. Since you did raise the issue of cells, however, let me offer an important clarification. A common and now increasingly banal assertion against evolution is that living entities could not have come from non-living entities. However, scientific experiments that closely modeled the Earth's early atmosphere reveal that our planet's primordial soup of gases and other materials could form substances like amino acids and RNA, both which have been indispensable ingredients for life. The most famous of these experiments was the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953 – it did not create life, but it did create the basic building blocks of life, the same building blocks that led to the first unicellular organisms.

I now finally arrive at what I think is the most blatantly incorrect statement you made about evolution in your introduction: the supposition that there is no evidence to support it. In fact, there is much evidence to support evolution. As an anecdotal aside, I often tell people that it is easier to believe in evolution than to believe in your own existence simply because there is so much more evidence for the former! The primary source for evidence of evolution can be found in fossils, which provide little tidbits and snapshots of the past that can offer tremendously useful clues when analyzed in patterns. Another critical evidentiary tool is homology, which simply refers to the similar physical characteristics among various animals and plants. Evolutionary theory posits that all current organisms evolved from a single unicellular creature billions of years ago (common descent), a proposition that makes a good deal of sense when we consider the incredible number of ways in which our planet's creatures are related. Humans, for example, still have vestigial remains of tails, even though we don't practically use them. Other animals, like birds and frogs, have physiologically differing forelimbs, but those forelimbs contain the same set of bones: the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. The existence of homologies is a powerful argument for common descent. But what is the best evidence of evolution? It is the kind of evidence that is hard to refute: we have seen it ourselves, even in lengthy controlled experiments. We already know about the microevolutionary effects - those that occur at the molecular level - in bacteria and viruses, but we have also observed macroevolutionary changes, very notably in fish like guppies, which evolved less bright and ostentatious colors when predators were introduced in their environment. They evolved those colors so that they could eschew the attention of the predators. Beyond all this, just think about the human domestication of animals. All this time, although we did not know it, we were conducting a giant experiment in evolution! When humans changed the behavioral patterns of some wolves a few thousand years ago, for example, we created a whole array of new canine species.

As you can see, evolution is a rich and complex subject, but one that has revolutionized our understanding of life on planet Earth. On the other hand, you champion intelligent design yet offer no concrete evidence for its putative credibility. Well, that's ok; you still have two more rounds! I will enjoy hearing from you again.
Debate Round No. 1
quadking8

Pro

quadking8 forfeited this round.
UberCryxic

Con

Although my opponent offered no response for this round, I would still like to comment more deeply on some of his statements in the first post, particularly his appraisal of intelligent design.

Intelligent design, which primarily argues that life is too complex to be explained solely in terms of naturalistic phenomena, is essentially a pseudoscience. Its proponents often try to masquerade it as a scientific theory, but it lacks the requisite elements, especially on its inability to offer testable propositions and to make relevant predictions. By positing a supernatural agent, intelligent design also undercuts the strong materialistic proclivities that have long characterized modern scientific theories. As an intellectual idea, it is not new at all. Design arguments are nearly as old as philosophy itself.

Let me now examine two of (perhaps) the most fundamental principles of intelligent design: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. The former idea claims that certain biological systems cannot be divided into simpler parts without losing functionality. Michael Behe, the creator of irreducible complexity, has sometimes used a mousetrap analogy to explain the basics: if a part of the mousetrap, like the spring, was removed, the mousetrap would no longer work. If irreducibly complex systems existed in nature, they would provide a devastating blow to evolutionary theory by falsifying its general presumption that more complex biological systems can arise from less complex ones. Darwin himself recognized just as much. However, we have no evidence that irreducibly complex systems exist. All of Behe's quasi-innumerable candidates have been shown to be wild goose chases.

Specified complexity, an idea by William Dembski, maintains that certain patterns or systems have such a high level of ordered integration that they must necessarily be guided processes. To better understand the proposition, consider the following analogy: an illiterate monkey randomly typing letters reveals complexity, but not specificity – the jumbled letters do not form a coherent message; on the other hand, a Shakespearean play, or any comprehensible piece of writing, possesses both complexity and specificity. Dembski would then argue that something like a Shakespearean play must have been the creation of an intelligent designer, of an agent with a rational purpose in mind. Dembski provided a mathematical-like definition of specified complexity, but one that is complete hogwash - the vast majority of all mathematicians and statisticians regard his work on specified complexity as ludicrous. What's the fundamental problem with his idea? It is basically nothing but a rehashing of the way things actually are - it does not offer anything new. It's a much longer way of saying, "things are this way because they are this way." Additionally, there is no standardized version of what specifically complex creations an intelligent designer would make versus those made by a non-intelligent entity. Even that monkey, if given enough time - eons, to be sure - would produce Shakespearean sonnets, but it doesn't mean that the monkey wanted to do just that.

As we can see, intelligent design is bereft of noteworthy ideas. Almost everything it says, including its major arguments, have either all been said before or have turned out to be totally untrue.
Debate Round No. 2
quadking8

Pro

quadking8 forfeited this round.
UberCryxic

Con

I have a lot more to say on this topic, but because my opponent has been non-responsive, I think I'll just end it here. It was fun while it lasted!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
I find it atrocious that quadking teaches science.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
A troll who decided his opinion on the subject supercedes the actual winner of this debate.
Posted by longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
Who voted for quadking8????????
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
I don't understand why people can't respectfully concede a debate rather than forfeit. Great arguments Uber!
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
Evolution is a complex system. It is full of rules and rules for rules and rules that cancel out other rules that they screwed up on. Do you know the chances of evolution even starting? they are 1 with 140 zeros behind it to 1. If someone dumped a bucket of legos on the ground and told you that by chance in a bilion years this would be a castle with walls, rooms, towers, and moving parts would you believe them?
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
You are stating that evolution is natural solection as quoted by Charles Darwin. Is the bigest person first in line? Are the pro wrestlelers leaders and presidents? This is not how things work. Survival of the fitest is a joke. The strongest survive? Is that how we want to live?
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
quadking8 -

You're going to be at a disadvantage because you clearly know absolutely nothing about evolution theory.

(Here's a tip: evolution theory doesn't say how life first originated - all it says is that species evolve over time.)
Posted by UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
We'll see....this should be interesting.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Yay! Kick his butt UberCryxic!!!!
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
DUH!

Gee the earth was created 6000 years ago by our creator

that makes much more sense than science

DUH!

(I still love Christians and Christ anyway)
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
quadking8UberCryxicTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by darwinfish 9 years ago
darwinfish
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ethereal 9 years ago
Ethereal
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
quadking8UberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03