The Instigator
jarek482361
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
lana
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

is evolution real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
jarek482361
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,294 times Debate No: 74713
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (71)
Votes (1)

 

jarek482361

Pro

Evolution is a theory that is always under fire because of the religious views of the people who oppose it. If you are a dernier of evolution I'd like to know why and what your opposing theory or hypothesis is. I personally see no reason to oppose it. How else would we have the great diversity of species and organisms on our planet without it. I see great evidence in the fossil record and the genes that have been seen to cause differentiation in organisms if switched on or off. With the way we share 99% of the same DNA with banobos and that our behavior and body structure are very similar. So. If you oppose challenge me and I will respond
lana

Con

You say that you have no reason to oppose evolution, but what real, solid, proof do you have? Evolution states that back Billions and Billions of years ago there was a big bang that started the whole process. My first point that I want to bring out is what proof do you have that the earth is billions of years old? You talk about the fossil record but where did that information come from? I believe that one God created the earth and that is where we get the organisms. The belief that I have is that God spoke the world into existence back only thousands of years ago. The proof I have for that is the Bible. The Bible has been around for Much longer that the theory of evolution. On the big bang, my argument is how could everything suddenly smash together and somehow end up forming the earth we have today? How could a big bang happen and we be just the right distance away from the sun to not burn up or just close enough to not freeze? It scientifically could not happen. The atmosphere could not just appear out of a big bang and be able to sustain life for as you say billions of years. The big bang theory, the foundation for evolution, is not scientifically stable itself so how can the rest of theory be?
Debate Round No. 1
jarek482361

Pro

jarek482361 forfeited this round.
lana

Con

I am debating this to try to prove to anyone who doesnt believe in God as the Creator or all things that he did. If you dont believe me then give me proof that he didnt. I have proof evolution isnt real based on the missing links and other highly disprovable "facts" of evolution. How can you disprove the Bible?
Debate Round No. 2
jarek482361

Pro

OK so I thought I'd get a more scholarly person on the topic when I made this debate but apparently not. The thing is that there are missing links but how do you expect us to find every fossil. You demand so much evidence for evolution but not for your god. If you did you'd be an atheist. If evolution is not true then what is your counter theory? And if your counter argument is god I will want to know why? Give me your evidence for him and creation as you interpret it from the bible
lana

Con

I am not a scholar but I do have my opinions. Whether you agree with them or not is up to you. I would like to ask you what things you think evolved? Where did the air come from ? How about the trees, sky, sun, or moon? How did those things evolve? Let's just take God out of the picture for the moment and I will come back to that later. Let's say I did believe in evolution. Where did everything come from in the first place to evolve? Now let's go back to God. I can say that God created the heavens and earth based on the things I see around us like the trees, sky, sun, and moon. I can also say that the Bible has been around since 1500 bc and written by over 40 men who all were christian men. The proposition of evolution was made in 1858 by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russle Wallace. The thing about evolution is that the "fact" is constantly changing. The thing with the Bible is that it is constant. Let me ask this, have you ever read the Bible? I have studied evolution from a secular view before I found the Bible but I was still not convinced. Matthew 24:11 "Then many false prophets will rise up and decieve many." Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures for me will be saved."
Debate Round No. 3
jarek482361

Pro

First off were talking about biological evolution OK. Don't get off topic. And what's wrong with the changing of science. Science is supposed to constantly revise and edit itself to be even more accurate and correct than the last time. And the bible being constant is not a good thing. All it says is that you look through things through a false angle that always is misconstrued back to your twisted view of reality. As for how everything got here. That is cosmic evolution bit that's not what we're talking about. We see the transitions from primate like creatures to homo sapiens on the fossil records. We see the first marine creature to walk on land, tiktallik, and we see at the deepest of rock layers simple creatures that then throughout time grow more complex through evolutionary change. To say otherwise is to deny the facts. And why do you deny evolution because of "lack" of evidence but need no evidence for your god?
lana

Con

You say a "lack" of evidence but there is no evidence. You say the fossil record but where did the fossil record come from? The fossil record came from the "evidence" of evolution. So technically speaking we are right back where we started. Have you ever heard the phrase history repeats itself? Look in the Bible and it clearly shows how history is starting to repeat itself. You have several theories and all for the most part are good theories but my question is why are you not answering my questions? I have given the answers as best as I humanly can but you have altogether avoided my questions. This is an open debate. So I brought out more proof against evolution and you change the subject. If you don't want me to talk about the other parts if evolution then you should have specified that at the beginning, however I will stick to "biological evolution". So what did evolution start with? W
hat was the first step in the process? If it started with the dna level then where did that come from? You aren't giving any other answer other than stating that Creationism is wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
jarek482361

Pro

The fossil record was composed of different organisms that we can see changes in over time. It was not zapped into existence by evolutionary theories. We connected the dots between organisms and don't even say I'm not answering your questions. I've been more than patient with you sir/mam. Evolution was carried on from the first cell ever which is still a bit of a haze of how that got there but we won't assume god because we don't know. You though. I don't need to disprove creation. You made the claim that that's a viable model of life on earth yet give me no evidence for it. And for an argument against it. Wouldn't dinosaur fossils and human fossils be on the same layer? Wouldn't we have traces of humans on the deepest rock layers along with the simplest of organisms? We don't. Because creation is a ridiculous model of reality. And as for the first cell. Its been discovered that lightning has the amino acids capable for composing a cell
lana

Con

But once again going back to one of my original arguments, where did the Lightning come from to compose the cell? Creation is the first, and longest standing theory in history. Charles Darwin in the end even said that his theory was wrong when he was on his death bed and then claimed to be a Christian . In the end evolution is not made up of fact but as you said "connecting the dots". This completely skips over the facts that would disprove evolution . Let me make my final statements a little more scientific so you might understand. Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals. He guessed that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. . Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this. This process of changing an organism"s appearance through a series of small changes is correctly called "microevolution" (with an "i") and is not what we are referring to when we write "the theory of evolution". After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in color, but it is still a frog"not a fish or a lizard like your theory states.You use Darwin"s theory, stating that this simple life evolved over the next 3 plus billion years into the plants, animals, and humans we see today"using the long term effects of microevolutionary changes. Scientists call this process of developing new life forms "macroevolution" (Note the different spelling.) Both of these processes put together are what the public at large and the scientific community think the "theory of evolution" is. Therefore, abiogenesis combined with macroevolution is what we are referring to when we write the "theory of evolution". We were discussing "where did life come from?" and "did we descend from apelike ancestors?" These are abiogenesis and macroevolution topics, respectively. There is no empirical (reproducible and testable) proof for abiogenesis or macroevolution. So, you turn the argument around to microevolution, where some evidence exists. You attempts to justify the theory of evolution by showing how microevolution works, but you are changing the topic and not proving anything. As a proof of macroevolution, many scientists turn to a lengthy, yet sophisticated discussion about changes in DNA from generation to generation as you have. This is still a jump in logic, since DNA changes are a microevolution topic"not scientific proof of abiogenesis, macroevolution, or the theory of evolution.As "evidence" to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. I have spent a great deal of time examining these sources in the past and saw only a "circle of information," with each document pointing to the next source as their "proof." In college, we cynically called this procedure the "tower of babble." (Yes, "babble" is the right word"this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!Unfortunately we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin"s theoretical writings.Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution? By the way,I realize that many of the writings that support the Bible"s creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. I am not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bible"s creation account instead. I propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given "equal time," with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. This debate was about is evolution real. I have given my facts and rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
71 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BriaBrnx 1 year ago
BriaBrnx
Argggh. Con is extremely misinformed in regards to the definition of evolution. The statement, "Evolution states that back Billions and Billions of years ago there was a big bang that started the whole process" is false. The term evolution, in the context of biology, refers to manner in which life on Earth has adapted/changed over the course of its existence. The Big Bang Theory is a separate topic. Which is not to say that it DIDN'T start the whole process indirectly, by causing the existence of the universe and all, but simply that evolution does not "state" that it did.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
He hasn't necessarily won yet, lana. I might not be the only one who votes!
Posted by lana 1 year ago
lana
*debating
Posted by lana 1 year ago
lana
I really enjoyed dabating with you and congrats on your win @jarek482361
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
I don't need the sources; they are just one an aspect in which a debate is judged. They are important to include in any debate where sources are applicable, like fact-based debates. You did alright without them here, but they would have provided strong support to your arguments.
Posted by jarek482361 1 year ago
jarek482361
Chaosism, sorry about lack of sources but I was having difficulties with retrieving links to scientific essays and journals about my claims but honestly I was really sleepy and not in my right mind when I made this debate and I'm new here but if you'd like some sources I'd be more than happy to give them to you somehow. I don't know if it'll give me the problem I had before. Sorry for the poor presentation on my part
Posted by jjjjllll 1 year ago
jjjjllll
Never mind just checked out the website. Totally biased. Bad website. It ignores several facts and basically argues "because it's pretty and we don't know, that means God". That's a horrible argument. Horrible. I hate "biased" creationist. I really do. Good bye again.
Posted by jjjjllll 1 year ago
jjjjllll
And remember to read first before you speak on a topic.
Posted by jjjjllll 1 year ago
jjjjllll
Goodbye people who stress me out
Posted by jjjjllll 1 year ago
jjjjllll
But still, evolution is a fact. And there is still no proof for God. Until evidence there is a God shows up, I'm atheist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
jarek482361lanaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar was about even. Con made a lot of arguments about non-related issues (i.e. Big Bing, Abiogenesis) that are not a concern of the Theory of Evolution; it only explains the diversity of life, not the origin. As previously stated, Con supplied the bulk of his argument at the very end when Pro could not respond. Although both participants' arguments were not well supported, Pro's rebuttals were stronger. Arguments to Pro. Neither side used reliable sources; Con used the bible as a source, but that source is unproven.