The Instigator
aliasuser
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
nerdyandnotsoproud
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

theory of evolution

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/6/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,036 times Debate No: 150
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (13)

 

aliasuser

Con

The evolution theory cannot possibly be correct because there is too much evidence against it and too much proof for a God
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

Are you sure about your claim? I think scientific evidence that corroborates the theory of evolution far outweighs the arguments against it. Perhaps you could enlighten me with your proof and evidence in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
aliasuser

Con

aliasuser forfeited this round.
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

nerdyandnotsoproud forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
aliasuser

Con

aliasuser forfeited this round.
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

nerdyandnotsoproud forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrumno 9 years ago
mrumno
Evolution has been proven, and if you do not use the literal interpretation of the bible, I don't object. However if you are saying the world is 6,000 yrs old then I will debate you any time.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
My soul/spirit exists since I know it does. That is all that matters to me
Posted by tex 9 years ago
tex
souls are not real. think about it. man made manguage. we needed something to explain the feeling of "happiness" and "sadness" or that "religious" feeling people get when they are "filled with the spirit" so we made a word for it (WAYYYYYY before the god of the hebrews came to exist)-soul, or variants on it (it was obviously not in english. english is a very young language and language is very old). do people who do not believe in the christian god not have souls?
a man without a soul feels no emotion right? therefore emotion is equal to this "soul" nonsense. wait a sec. black people use "soul" to describe their feelings towards certain types of food and music. soul food. who agrees with me that ice cream is the greatest invention since the wheel?
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Without any factual research, my belief is that a Christian can believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but with one exception. Somewhere along the evolutionary time-line, God infused a soul and man commenced to exist.
Posted by Los_Altos_JW 9 years ago
Los_Altos_JW
My friend and I have had this debate
It will never go anywhere because both sides are so attached to their position that debate is impossible short of ABSOLUTE proof...such as going back in time

So give this up.
Posted by christ88 9 years ago
christ88
I think the thing that catches me about evolution is the beginning. I truly believe in macro-evolution and micro-evolution has been proven. What I wonder about is the first thing that ever existed, how did it come to be? The real argument needs to be about whatever came first, evolution can take over from there, but what did evolution start with?
Posted by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
"definitely NOT a creature with higher genetics" - What are "higher genetics"? Realize that no species on Earth is any "higher", biologically speaking, than any other. All species are equally evolved. They just evolved in different ways. We do not follow a different path than any other species, but we did not follow a longer, or an objectively "higher", path.

Again, consider lions and tigers. Are lions and tigers separate species? What about horses and zebras, or horses and donkeys? Realize that these distinct species can breed and produce hybrids, suggesting that they were once one species, just as dogs and wolves are one species. Look up "ring species" as well. Ultimately, species are distinguished by a matter of degree; only after millions of years of speciation and extinction can we clearly distinguish different species, because until enough chromosomal mutations have accumulated to truly make reproduction impossible, there really isn't any major difference between the variation between dog breeds and the variation between closely-related species. The difference is one of degree, as I said.
Posted by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
"Shouldn't we have made them die out too?" - Why would we have? How would we have done so? How do you imagine humans would have "made" all the monkey species in the world die out? Hominid species like Australopithecus africanus did not die out because of us; it is entirely possible, at least in the shorter term, for one subset of a species to evolve into a new species while the rest of the population does not speciate. Look up "reproductive isolation" in reference to population genetics.

"There are no valid half-species that have ever been found" - And what is a "half-species" exactly? Evolution does not work as you imagine it to. Every species that has ever evolved is a "full species" in its own right; all species are equally intermediary. Only in particular contexts, and in retrospect, can we say that one species was a transitional species between two groups: Archaeopteryx, for example, was not a "half-bird", and Tiktaalik was not a "half-fish": they were fully functional, indepedent species in their own right, that just happened to be part of a group that was reproductively successful enough to eventually diverge into a major class of organisms. Whether a species is considered "transitional" or not is ultimately an arbitrary human construct.

"we, as complex, fully-functioning creatures, could have evolved directly from apes" - Why? The other apes are complex and fully-functioning too.

"it takes CAREFUL and THOUGHTFUL breeding after breeding with very specific genetic research before a new breed is formed" - That's not true. It takes careful research to breed a specific set of characteristics, but it's easy to create a new breed: all you need is time, reproductive isolation, and a selective pressure. For example, if you selected against large size, you would very quickly see your population of dogs shrink from generation to generation. That's what evolution is; in nature, the only difference is that the selective pressures are non-artificial.
Posted by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
Impact said "half-man half-monkey", not "half-man half-ape". The latter is absurd because humans are biologically qualified as apes (i.e., members of the superfamily Hominoidea); you might as well ask for a "half-man half-mammal". However, if you mean a species that is halfway between humans and non-human apes, there are plentiful examples in the fossil record. If your issue is with the fact that none survive to this day, then consider the fact that if one (let's call it "species X") did, you would just be arguing "why isn't there a species that's halfway between humans and species X?". Chimpanzees are intermediaries between humans and the other apes; apes in turn are intermediaries between us and monkeys; and so on. You could move the goalposts forever by asking for more and more and more transitional species, but it'd be missing the point.

"but is nowhere even close to actually being human" - Because it's not human. It's a chimpanzee. Fossil evidence indicates that humans and chimpanzees diverged over 5 million years ago, so why would we expect to still be so similar to chimpanzees after so many millions of years of mutation and genetic drift?

"Besides, if we "evolved" from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today?" - Cladogenesis. Most evolution is not "species A becomes species B", but rather "species A splits into species B and species C". You're committing the anagenetic fallacy by assuming that our ancestors couldn't diverge into two lineages, one that evolved into modern monkeys and one that evolved into modern humans (and non-human hominoids).

"so why are the creatures that we evolved from several places down the "evolution chain" still around?" - What is this 'evolutionary chain'? Evolutionary divergence occurs like a tree or bush, not a chain: branches 'split off' in different directions. In other words, evolution is nonlinear. This is how a single species could evolve into a diverse variety of species over the millennia.
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
okay, natural selection occurs more dominate when there is separation,

Monkeys live on island, something happens so island is split in 2, monkeys on one side evolve one way, monkeys on other side evolve another depending on the habitat. one side may provide for the current monkeys and thus they do not evolve as rapidly, it's not a very complicated theory. (that was just a basic example of how it works)
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kingtruffles 9 years ago
Kingtruffles
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Projectilefetus 9 years ago
Projectilefetus
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Sgtdap 9 years ago
Sgtdap
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 ojmartinez25 9 years ago
ojmartinez25
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 mrumno 9 years ago
mrumno
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Vlast 9 years ago
Vlast
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 tex 9 years ago
tex
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Boulder_Boy101 9 years ago
Boulder_Boy101
aliasusernerdyandnotsoproudTied
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