The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Evolution is false

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 28222
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




round 1 is for acceptance.


I accept, but you have the Burden of Proof.
I never really debated on something that I don't really believe in.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting.

The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution.

2. Law of large numbers.

The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this

3. Flagellum

" The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2]

4. Mates

All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts.

5. Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction.

[1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006).


The_Master_Riddler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I am sorry, I had to study for exams, but you never put rules in place saying that if I missed a round I lost.

I am also dissapointed that after three rounds, you haven't even thought about putting up a definition of evolution. Heck, we could be debating about Pokemon evolution. So I am going to post the definition of evolution.

Evolution- change over time

So I guess we are debating on whether change over time occurs.

For example, and I am not trying to sound racist, but Africans usually have no hair on their legs.This was usually because of their cold environment. But when they were forced to America, they were forced to adapt to colder environments and because of that, they got hair on their legs to keep them warm. I, for one, am an African American with hair on my legs. This is a type of evolution which helps us adapt to the environment we live.


I am going to challenge the validity of that argument and ask what does that have to do with this debate.

First off, did someone do a study over 20,000 years to prove that glue takes 20,000 years to deteriorate? Cause the last time I checked , glue was invented in 1750, which is not even enough time to even do that study. The only way to prove that is through carbon 14 dating. But if that is the case, then my opponent automatically, forfeited because carbon 14 dating justifies Darwin's evolution theory.

Law of Large Numbers

How does that first even relate to this debate? Second, so time is going to go backwards? Nobody can come from the dead so that statement has no purpose in this debate.


Evolution is the changing over time so of course, the new born animal needs time to develop to have reproductive organs. Think of a new born baby having sex.


My opponent is misleading you voters. The second law of thermodynamics says that
"in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the
potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial
state." from the website

My opponent committed the fallacy of Over Reliance of Authority, simply stating that evolution is false because the man said so. That doesn't prove that evolution is false even with the example of the flagellum. If someone removed a man's heart, he couldn't survive, but that doesn't mean that evolution is false.
Nothing my opponent said is true and doesn't justify that evolution is false.

Debate Round No. 3


Evolution is change. However what's debated is how much change can happen. Variations can happen, but major change cannot. Your example of the Africans only proves variation.

There's very much evidence that shows evolution doesn't have enough time to happen(even assuming the 4.6 billion year old time scale)

1. Glue

As I've said, it would mean there's not enough time for evolution.

I don't man when glue was invented LOL. The molecules in it would've decayed, so we couldn't make glue. It would just be white liquid.

2. Law of Large Numbers

It shows that evolution contradicts a law, since evolution says over time creatures get more diverse and can never devolve.

Your dead example fails, since before we were born we had no conscious. So you actually proved the law.

3. Flagellum
Con strawmans the argument. It's not false because someone says it but because evidence shows it. Using that logic all of science is wrong. Your heart example would require the model of human evolution to be slight changes for all organs. That's not the model however it is for the flagellum.

4. Mates

You don't get it.

" For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."[1][2]

5. Thermodynamics

That's not all what Thermodynamics says.

Creationwiki writes

"This is a nearly accurate statement of the 2nd law, although entropy is actually a measure of unusable energy, not useful energy. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is:

S is entropy.

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder.

Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder."



My argument

Major Premise: Evolution is change (stated by my opponent).

Minor Premise: Hughe Masakela, African musician, says that "everything must change, nothing is forever"

Conclusion: Everything must go through evolution.

My opponent has not proven that everything doesn't go through change.


As I said, the glue argument is highly contradictory to this debate. The only was to prove that the particles are dying in glue is through carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating proves that evolution is true. Therefore, Pro has lost this debate by default because he has not tried to make reason with this statement. He is trying to say that glue disproves evolution by using evidence that supports evolution.

Also, I want to challenge the validity of that statement. How can you prove that it takes 20,000 years to break glue down when it was invented in 1750? The only way is through carbon 14 dating!

Large Numbers Law

So you are saying that a person can get younger, can change back to his adolescent years or even become a baby again?
The last time I checked, age is the only thing that can go up that never goes back down. This has been refuted.


My opponent says that taking an organelle out of flagellum kills it. He also says that because when you remove an organelle from a flagellum it dies, therefore it justifies evolution's falsehood. But my opponent has failed to realize that this statement proves nothing except that it needs to have all organelles to survive. The man in the quote asserts that just because it dies, it is made by a all mighty being, but the man fails to prove how this disproves change over time. In fact, as I stated earlier, if you remove a heart from a man, it will die just like if you remove the organelle (which is not specified by the man) from the flagellum. As you can see, this argument has been easily refuted as he relies only on what this man said. Also, my opponent said that the statement about the flagellum is not even true, unless if he is simply grammatically incorrect. He said that It's not false because someone says it but because evidence shows it. As you can see, he just stated that this argument is false not because the man says that but his argument is false because there is evidence to prove it is false.


His argument made no sense and asserts the only way for evolution to be true is if every time a baby infant is born if it has the same reproductive organs as its ancestor. The baby will get those organs, over time, through a short period of evolution. As that baby gets older, he will have those reproductive organs.

He makes no correlation to what thermodynamics has to do with this debate except that things'll disorder, but because he concedes to my definition of evolution, which is change over time, and sometimes change can be disorderly, therefore evolution can be disorderly and can comply to the second law of thermodynamics.


Because he posted that in the last round and usually in the last round you are not supposed to post new arguments, I will not argue that.

Excuse the fact in the third round where I said that Africans lived in cold environments, I meant to say warm.
As you can see, my opponent did not rrefute my argument of an example of evolution. I proved that over time evolution is apparent through Africans get hairy legs to withstand the harsh coldeer climates of North America and Europe through the African slave trade.
I am assuming that Pro has conceded my argument on an example of evolution which is a true example.

Pro has not met the BoP.

I hope this was a good debate and vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 6 years ago
and when i said cold, i meant warm
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's frofeit. Args to Con for obvious reasons.