The Instigator
Newlife
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ghostintheshadows
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution (speciation) 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...
Newlife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 115633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Newlife

Pro

Evolution is almost always taught in schools as irrefutable fact, yet it is actually nothing more than a philosophy.
All significant evidence has been disproven over the decades, yet it is treaten as fact. They have no transitional fossils, random mutations resulting in perfect structures is preposterous, and homology isn't even worth mentioning.
ghostintheshadows

Con

Evolution is one of the greatest theories in all of science and, unless you are a scientist yourself (which I highly doubt you are), you have nothing to negate this. Evolution sets out to explain life: specifically, how the first simple life gave rise to all the huge diversity we see today, from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales. For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is round, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying. Not that you would know that from the media in some countries, where evolution is ferociously argued about- put down as "just a theory" or dismissed as a flat-out lie. But this is clearly false.

Why are biologists so certain about this? What is the evidence? The short answer is that there's so much it's hard to know where to start. But here is a very cursory summary of the evidence that has, indeed, evolved. It might help to first spell out Darwin's theory of evolution and what it actually says. Most of us have the general idea that species change over time, only the fittest survive and somehow a monkey-like creature gave rise to human beings.

If you look up the meaning of the word "theory" in the dictionary, it is described as being a synonym for words like "proposition", "hypothesis", or even "speculation". In contrast, a scientific theory is an established body of knowledge about a certain subject, supported by observable facts, repeatable experiments, and logical reasoning. A theory in science is a formal explanation of some aspect of the natural world, tested and verified by careful observation and experimentation. A good theory is one that also produces accurate and useful predictions.

As an example, let"s consider gravitation. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton formulated his law of gravitation, which explains the motions of objects under each other"s gravitational influence. Newton"s law can be used to predict the movements of the planets around the Sun, and NASA has used this same law to successfully land people on the Moon and send space probes to the outer edges of the solar system. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, it had become clear that Newton"s law did not hold up under all circumstances. When it comes to planets or falling apples, Newton"s theory of gravitation is perfectly adequate. But when objects move at velocities close to the speed of light, for example, this theory does not produce accurate predictions anymore. Albert Einstein extended Newton"s law with his general theory of relativity, which accounted for these discrepancies.

Isaac Newton (1643 " 1727).
During the 1960s, physicist Peter Higgs and others postulated the existence of an elementary particle, now known as the Higgs boson, that would explain why some elementary particles have mass. Mass is of course directly related to gravity: both Newton and Einstein tell us that it"s massive bodies which exert a gravitational pull. Thus, a prediction from particle physics provided a deeper insight into the workings of gravity. The postulation of the Higgs boson was purely based on mathematical reasoning, as there was then no way of actually observing such a particle. However, just a few years ago, CERN announced that they had confirmed this prediction with their multi-million dollar particle collider.
The theory of gravitation is a well-established scientific theory, supported by observational and experimental evidence. It explains something about the natural world and can be directly applied to obtain useful results. Over the years, the theory has been extended and refined (as part of the usual scientific process), but the basic ideas and principles have withstood the test of time.

Evolution
In the 19th century, Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution by natural selection. The fact that species change (evolve) over time was not new, as this was already well accepted among Darwin"s scientific contemporaries. However, what Darwin provided was a new and logical explanation of how this process of evolution happens.

Charles Darwin (1809 " 1882).
Offspring inherit their characteristics from their parents, but with small (and mostly random) variations. However, most organisms have far more than one offspring, resulting in competition for resources and healthy mates among individuals between and within species. This, in turn, gives rise to a natural selection process where, on average, individuals with advantageous variations (making them more likely to survive and secure a healthy mate) will have more offspring than others. This way, such advantageous variations are passed on to subsequent generations more often " thus spreading through the population " than disadvantageous variations, which are "weeded out". Over long time spans, the accumulation of such adaptations can eventually result in a speciation event, for example when a population of related organisms splits into two geographically isolated ones, which subsequently evolve in different directions.

Yet Darwin and many biologists after him could not explain how exactly organisms inherit their characteristics from their parents. Darwin"s insights were based on observing and comparing actual organisms in nature (including fossils), and then deducing general principles of their evolution that are logically consistent with these observations.
Darwin"s theory of evolution, however, still fell short in certain aspects. For example, it did not provide any quantitative predictions. During the first half of the 20th century, though, the mathematical theory of population genetics was developed. This theory provides accurate predictions about, for example, how fast a new variation (genetic mutation) will spread through a population. Soon after, Darwin"s theory and population genetics were married into what is known as the new evolutionary synthesis (or modern synthesis).

In 1944, the physicist Erwin Schr"dinger published his book What is life?, in which he postulated the existence of a certain kind of molecule, referring to it as an aperiodic crystal, that would form the basis of genetics, which is directly related to inheritance. Thus, a prediction about chemistry provided a deeper insight into the workings of evolution. Schr"dinger"s postulation was purely based on logical reasoning, as he had no means of actually observing the structure of such a molecule. In 1953, however, his prediction was confirmed with the discovery of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. This discovery eventually led to cracking the genetic code.

Being bright blue might help you secure a mate and spread your genes.
These days, evolutionary theory is used in many practical applications. For example, when a new virus appears somewhere in, say, Asia, scientists use phylogenetic and population genetics models to predict how this virus might evolve, so they can try to create the most effective vaccine by the time the virus reaches Europe or the US (phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary history). Mathematics plays an essential role here, without which these predictions could not be made.

Also, evolution-based methods are used in the laboratory to find better medicines for various illnesses, or in computer programs to find good solutions to difficult optimisation problems. And environmental policies are increasingly based on evolutionary analyses to make decisions about species preservation efforts, to name just a few.

The theory of evolution is a well-established scientific theory, supported by observational and experimental evidence. It explains something about the natural world and can be directly applied to obtain useful results. Over the years, the theory has been (and still is being) extended and refined, but the basic ideas and principles have withstood the test of time

Of course evolution is REAL. You have presented no evidence or proof otherwise, rather an opinionated and useless theory
Debate Round No. 1
Newlife

Pro

To begin my rebuttal, I will give a very brief analytical outline of your prior argument:
1. We know for certain evolution is real
2. A theory has been well tested and explains a part of the natural world
3. Natural selection is the means by which evolution occurs
4. Inheritance and genetics play a large role in evolution
5. Applications today of evolution

In your second paragraph, you said that "there's so much [evidence] it's hard to know where to start." Yet throughout your entire argument, you gave not one example of evidence. Generalizations are not evidence. Evidence comes in specific terms.

In reference to your explanations of gravity, I completely agree with you when you say that it is well tested and verified. However, I am sorry to say that it is irrelevant in proving that evolution has been tested.

When you say that evolution was already accepted by many scientists before Darwin, on what basis was the hypothesis accepted? And even tested? How many scientists actually even accepted evolution? It sounds like you are arguing that since many scientists believe it, it must be true. I think it is better to say that because many scientists believe it, we should consider it and listen. But that doesn't automatically verify it.

How exactly do we know that offspring are usually born with "mostly random" variations (What is "mostly" random supposed to mean?)? Are the variations purposeful? What force would drive those variations? How do we know those offspring would survive? Or even reproduce? How do we know those variations would be helpful? We don't have any transitional fossils, and we sure haven't observed this. How exactly is this scientific or testable? The hypothetical explanation does sound great and all, but that is all it is. It is hypothetical and actually philosophical. See, by observing that, say, a rabbit has a certain fur color that helps it survive, then assuming that therefore it must have changed over a long period of time to get to that point, is a philosophical viewpoint and not science because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. There are other "stories" that perfectly fit how things are the way they are. For example, evolutionists see a green bug on a green tree and say that therefore it must have changed for a long time to adapt to the color of the tree, and creationists see that same green bug on the green tree and say that God placed that green bug on the green tree because it would be ridiculous to put a red bug on the tree. Both stories fit, but that is all they are. Stories. Plausible explanations, but not necessarily a good explanation, until they are backed up with evidence. In order to be considered a scientific hypothesis, it has to be falsifiable.

It is also important to just think through the basic concept of speciation logically. I will use the well-known example of a cow turning into a whale. The question has to be raised: What properties exactly would have to be changed for a land-dwelling creature to turn into a sea-dwelling creature? Keep in mind that all of these changes would have to "randomly" occur in a perfect manner, or else any of the transitional forms will die off without successfully reproducing because their organs and extremities are only half developed. Specifically how many changes are required to change from a creature that lives on land only into a mammal that spends its entire life in the ocean? A very modest calculation that a biologist once made was that it would take more than 50,000 morphological changes. If we only have two members from that sequence, where are the other 49, 998 members from that sequence? The same applies to all of the other creatures evolutionists say changed into completely other species. Let us just think of a few of the major changes that would have to take place RANDOMLY: lactation, feeding, breathing, skin, membrane over eyes, reproduction, hearing, etc. To be honest, we have not found any significant transitional fossils to show that these changes took place.

Now, let's go back to the very start of evolution, when the first unicellular organisms came into existence. It started when it rained on the molten rocks of the Earth for millions and millions of years. Where did all that water come from? How is it possible to rain continuously for that long? Why aren't we completely submerged in water? How many gallons would that be? How could all of that water have disappeared? The next part of the story is that all of that water became a primordial soup, as evolutionists often like to call it. Where did those elements come from? Oh, right. The Big Bang, where the entire universe exploded into existence from nothing. Literally nothing. But moving on, let's assume that all of those elements are there. There was a flash of lightning, and a lot of time, and the elements meshed together in exactly the right way forming proteins and other components needed for life. The perfect, constantly brought up, experiment that illustrates this process, is the Urey-Miller experiment. "Their apparatus [...] included a chamber containing the gases Oparin assumed were present in the young Earth"s atmosphere. As the gases circulated in the chamber, electric sparks, substituting for lighting, supplied energy to drive chemical reactions. The Miller-Urey experiment, and other variations that have followed, produced a variety of organic compounds, including amino acids." However, in this well known experiment that took place in 1953, were identified more than a few flaws that compromised the reliability of its results.
From Scott M. Huse, Ph.D., "1. The concentrations of methane and ammonia were carefully selected to ensure the production of organic molecules. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth"s atmosphere was so characterized.
2. There is no evidence to indicate the Earth"s early atmosphere was reducing. There is, however, considerable evidence to suggest the Earth had an oxidizing atmosphere during most, if not all, of its history.
3. A methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to life-forms.
4. The simulation of lightning by mild spark discharges is unrealistic. Actual lightning would have destroyed any organics that may have been present.
5. The molecules produced in the Miller-Urey apparatus would react detrimentally to life forms that were trying to evolve. Chemically, they would destroy all hope of producing life."
Aside from those points, there were two standout problems with how the experiment was conducted. The first is that Urey and Miller made it so that there was no oxygen in the flask, but without oxygen they would not have been able to have ammonia, one of the key components to their experiment. This is true because UV rays destroy ammonia, yet the only thing that blocks the UV rays is the ozone layer, which is comprised of oxygen. The second point is that the experiment did not produce a variety of organic compounds like everyone lets on. The outcome was eighty-five percent tar, thirteen percent carboxylic acid (both are toxic to life), and only two percent amino acids. On top of that, they only produced two of the twenty types of amino acids actually needed for life. During their experiment, once the amino acids formed, Urey and Miller had to instantly move them to another flask because they would have been destroyed by the tar and acid. It goes without saying why this is unrealistic. The most ironic part about the entire situation is that it just proves that even in a laboratory run by brilliant scientists life cannot be created from nothing.
Thus, it seems absurd to try to assume what happened after life began without properly knowing how it began.

So, therefore, let me just say that, like you so brilliantly stated in your last argument, "You have presented no evidence or proof otherwise, rather an opinionated and useless theory."
ghostintheshadows

Con

To start off with my rebuttal, I'd like to state that you have not put up another theory as to how we ended up on earth.

1. As I stated before with my scientific evidence, we DO know that evolution IS REAL
2. Yes, a theory has been well tested and explains a part (in fact quite a few parts) of the natural world
3. Natural selection IS the means by which evolution occurs
4. Inheritance and genetics DO play a large role in evolution

First off, in my 'second paragraph', I did provide evidence, and generalizations are evidence. To add to that, you can't accuse me of this when you haven't provided a shred of evidence yourself.

The theory of gravity is not irrelevant in proving that evolution has been tested. Evolution HAS been tested with hundreds of years of research. What other theory or explanation do you have for this?

The basis of my hypothesis being accepted is that a tiny percentage of scientists believe that evolution was not the beginning of us, who are (no offense intended) idiots. This is exactly the same as scientists who still believe that the world is flat... proven false. And yes, I am arguing that because scientists believe it, it will be true. Not 'we should consider it'. If you argue that that doesn't verify it, I ask what verify's your aguement?

We know that offspring are usually born with mostly random variations due to science; and if you don't know what 'mostly random' means, maybe you should search it up in the dictionary. The force that drives these variations is genetics/genes. I'm not sure if you took biology at school, but if you did, you should be understanding the simple facts around this. If we don't reproduce then how do we exist? These variations are clearly helpful as they help to shape who we are, and this point is also irrelevant to the moot. What offspring are you talking about when you ask whether they would survive or reproduce? People are born every single day and I am alive so yes, I have survived. I think I'll sort out the rest of this argument when I understand what variations you are talking about. The fact that you are saying that we don't have transitional fossils (WHICH WE ACTUALLY DO- SEARCH IT UP) doesn't prove your point in any way. It wouldn't matter if we didn't have them (BUT WE DO HAVE THEM) because it proves absolutely nothing. One piece of evidence (or more like assumption) doesn't prove an arguement. How is this scientific? It doesn't matter if it's scientific. Scientists don't prove everything- fossils are the job of an archeologist. This argument is not 'hypothetical and actually philosophical.' Your strange example of this 'rabbit' doesn't prove any point at all. Science does have evidence that we have evolved over time, and unless you can come up with a shred of evidence or even an arguement point that works on your side, you do not have a case.

Whether you believe in God or not is completely irrelevant here. This isn't a debate on whether God exists or not, this is a debate on whether evolution happened... which it did. This 'story' you put up about a green bug that sits on a green tree and how it must have changed for a long time to adapt to the colour of the tree is exactly correct. Congratulations on finally getting something right! These creatures have adapted to their surroundings over time, and for your case on how 'it would be ridiculous to put a red bug on the tree,' there are red bugs on trees... just something to think about. Just to add in a point here that you have failed to recognise, the idea of evolution is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a scientific fact. Want an example of this? Your arguement: Black holes don't exist. My (and the correct) arguement: Black holes do exist, and here are the reasons why... (scientific evidence/theories). This is the exact same concept with evolution. Surely you believe that black holes exist despite there being, as you put it, "no scientific evidence", so why don't you take the same stance on evolution?

The basic concept of speciation logic: a cow turning into a whale. First off: what a stupid example for the following reasons: 1. that whales OBVIOUSLY did not originate from cows; they originated from Pakicetus, which were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth- extra point to make... cows do not have teeth. This incorrect piece of evidence you have used here proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. What properties exactly would have to be changed for a land dwelling creature to turn into a sea dwelling creature? The genetic of them... when chromosones of a male and female come together they produce a child. (?) + (?) = (?). One animal + another animal = new species. Also, we have learned to adapt to our environment, and animals do the exact same thing, which is the reason behind evolution. In order to survive, animals continue to adapt to their surroundings.

Yes. You got another thing right! These changes do happen 'ramdomly'. But they do not occur in a perfect manner. We can't (without genetic engineering) decide and then produce a boy or girl. This happens naturally. So no. This statement that you have made is wrong. Just because they do happen randomly and don't occur in a 'perfect manner' doesn't mean that species will randomly die off 'without successfully reproducing because their organs and extremities are only half developed.' No one knows how many changes are required to change from a creature that lives on land to one that spends it's entire life in the ocean. These animals continue to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Think about the ice age over a million years ago... this is what adapting to their surroundings is about. By living in the ocean they were able to survive.

Whether it takes more than 50,000 morphological (do you even know what this word means?) changes or not, this is (once again) COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. We just need animals to adapt to their surroundings. Not 50,000 sequences, and might I add that you continue to question my evidence, and on this particular point I question yours, as you have stated that 'a biologist (i.e. 1 biologist) once made.' The evidence that we have around this clearly proves that this did in fact take place.

For this entire case you have talked about animals, and now you are suddenly moving onto water. How interesting. Once again, why don't you ask a scientist who actually knows what they are talking about rather than going onto some website with dodgy and false information. Whether the big bang happened or not is also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Evolution still occured whether you want to believe this or not, and this is completely irrelevant to whether the big bang happened or not. This experiment, 'the Urey-Miller experiment' that you seem to have read so much into you suddenly believe is false if also wrong, as majority of scientists believe that it is true, and they know a lot more than you on evolution.

The part of this that I am finding ironic is that you continue to dismiss all of the evidence that these brilliant, smart scientists have proven as if you are some kind of genius that just seems to know the answer to everything. No offence, but I don't think that you are, and don't get me wrong, neither am I. I am simply stating the facts that are actually factal and true, written on paper which prove that evolution did in fact happen.

Maybe, if you want to believe it, not with a 'Big Bang', but there are many other explanations and theories (which I have stated above) that prove that evolution exists, and it is also obvious that I could not fit every single piece of evidence into 7000 characters, so if you need more proof, search it online for yourself.

So therefore, let me just say that, like you so brilliantly stated in your last argument, "you have presented no evidence or proof otherwise, rather an opinionated and useless theory." Evolution did happen, and the facts that I have presented prove the reasons why
Debate Round No. 2
Newlife

Pro

To briefly explain the structure of my final argument, I will first be pointing out the major, recurring flaws in your rebuttal and then going down line by line through as many of your points as I can.
1. The argument that plays a constant role in your rebuttal is that there is so much evidence and of course evolution is true. However, every time you talk about how much evidence there is, you still do not provide even one example. Simply saying that something is true does not make it so.
2. You seem to always be bringing up the point that scientists think it is true, so therefore it is. Let me just state a few of the obvious scenarios where that viewpoint didn't exactly work out: the geocentric model of the universe, the shape of the Earth, the luminiferous aefer, the theory of the eternal universe, etc. It therefore seems illogical to say that because some scientists (i.e. people who have put a lot of research in but make mistakes just like the rest of us) believe in something, it automatically means it is a fact.
3. You always end up dismissing my evidence without properly addressing why it is wrong, labeling it as either "irrelevant" or just flat out "false." Upon doing that, you continue to say that I have not provided even a "shred of evidence." With any type of debate, ignoring the opponent's evidence is never the proper structure in which to argue.
4. You continue to ask me for any competing theories, yet I am not responsible for that given the debate is solely over whether evolution is true or not.

Starting from the very beginning of your rebuttal, you said, "As I stated before with my scientific evidence, we DO know that evolution is REAL." First off, the most extensive piece of evidence you gave was "there's so much it's hard to know where to start." This quote also lines up with your statement in your last rebuttal: "in my 'second paragraph', I did provide evidence, and generalizations are evidence." Saying that there is so much you cannot state any one example is not evidence. once again, saying there is evidence does not mean there is evidence; and saying something is real does not make it so. Further, you say that "you can't accuse me of this when you haven't provided a shred of evidence yourself." Just to clarify, here is the list of the in-depth evidences I used in my prior argument that were ignored:
1. The hypothesis of a whale's evolution
2. The beginning of life
3. The Urey-Miller Experiment

You said, "The theory of gravity is not irrelevant in proving that evolution has been tested. Evolution HAS been tested with hundreds of years of research." This is not a logical procession of ideas because stating that gravity has been tested and evolution has been tested does not make them relevant to each other. Saying that the theory of gravity has been proven, so therefore it supports evolution having been proven, is not a fluid argument or relevant.

"We know that offspring are usually born with mostly random variations due to science". What is meant by "science"? What pieces of evidence SPECIFICALLY support that? "If we don't reproduce then how do we exist?" This point is illogical given that in my prior argument I was only stating that it was impossible to know whether or not the mutated offspring would necessarily reproduce. It is logical to assume that not all creatures reproduce, especially those that are not like other kinds of their species, in both good and bad ways. "These variations are clearly helpful as they help to shape who we are [...] What offspring are you talking about when you ask whether they would survive or reproduce? People are born every sing day and I am alive so yes, I have survived." First of all, you could only know the variations were helpful if we know for a fact they actually happened. Secondly, this point is just taking the perspective of "We all exist, so therefore we must have evolved. We are all different, so therefore we must have changed." That is not science. It is a philosophy. Third, the entire theory of evolution is based off of the hypothesis that variations happen within offspring, and those offspring reproduce. Therefore, by offspring, it is obvious that it is referring to offspring that have those variations. Saying that people are born every day and you are alive is not evidence. 29,000 children under the age of five die every day from natural causes, so your irrelevant point does not prove anything. And unless you have some mutation that allows you to do something superior to other humans, you are not evidence of evolution.

"It wouldn't matter if we didn't have [transitional fossils] [...] because it proves absolutely nothing. One piece of evidence (or more like assumption) doesn't prove an argument." First of all, this statement actually contradicts what you are trying to prove, because if evolution was indeed true, we would be able to find millions upon millions of transitional fossils. So, saying that it doesn't matter if there are fossils just proves my point, not yours. And yes, you need evidence to prove an argument that relies upon the physical world.

"It doesn't matter if it's scientific. Scientists don't prove everything-fossils are the job of an archaeologist." This is an odd argument to make, given that evolution is supposedly a SCIENTIFIC fact (i.e. observable and following the natural laws [pertaining to science]). And archaeologists still fall under the basic category of scientists. They still investigate SCIENCE.

As for my "strange example of this 'rabbit' [not proving] any point at all", "See, by observing that, say, a rabbit has a certain fur color that helps it survive, then assuming that therefore it must have changed over a long period of time to get to that point, is a philosophical viewpoint and not science because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis." These points actually do prove something-that it is not science. Once again, just because you say that "Science does have evidence that we have evolved over time" does not make it so. The more effective approach would be to just provide an example, instead of restating that over and over again.

By saying that the whale argument is ridiculous because it is not a cow and actually a Pakicetus, that is nonsensical because the same points still apply: a land mammal would still have to evolve into a sea-dwelling animal. As for the "cows do not have teeth", that actually is not true: cows have molars on the upper and lower jaw, incisors on the lower jaw, and a tough dental pad on their upper lip. Anyhow, some scientists still theorize about whales coming from cows and even go so far as to put it in textbooks. In reference to you saying that the only properties would have to be the genetics by reproducing, that is still exactly what I said. You also did not address the 50,000 changes, which would come out if any scientist actually put their mind to calculating it. By saying that "One animal+ another animal= new species", if only it were that simple. That is a drastic over simplification that actually is not even what evolution is saying. They are saying that two animals of the same species create a new species, while you are implying that it is more like interbreeding. Also, adapting is essentially the same thing as changing, so your points on adaptations don't prove anything.

"These changes do happen 'randomly'. But they do not occur in a perfect manner." How could we exist as we do, our organs perfectly designed and proportioned inside of us to work in practically any environment? Watch any video on the complexity of DNA, and how perfectly it works.

My final point is that without knowing whether we were created or simply popped into existence, how could you theorize about how we developed? Our origins are far from irrelevant to this argument. As for the Urey-Miller experiment, you once again completely skipped over all evidence I gave.

Thus, given my lack of characters remaining, I will conclude
ghostintheshadows

Con

Ok. First off, the way you continue to go on about "every time you talk about how much evidence there is, you still do not provide even one example" is strange seeing that I HAVE included evidence, but you have listed and made statements without explaining what this 'evidence' actually proves and whether it is actually credible.

While you say that I continue to bring up the point that scientists think that it is true so therefore it is, you are wrong again. There is far more evidence (as I have stated and proven in my previous arguments) to support evolution being real than your argument on evolution never having happened.

My argument on the shape of the earth was an obvious argument that proved that the list of people who still believe that the earth is flat (and yes, they still exist)

You provided three main examples without actually explaining what they were in words that anyone who does not have a degree in science would understand regarding the following three topics that I will now explore:
1. The hypothesis of a whale's evolution. Not only did I state in my previous argument that this was wrong, but I also proved this with the evidence of how your statement on a whale's evolution was entirely false... you said that it originated from a cow when it actually did not... this clearly supports my argument around my point of you using false and unreliable material.
2. You provided no other reason behind the beginning of life besides the philosophical argument of 'God', which we are not debating today, and which any argument made against this would be attacked by those who are religious, which is why I will not begin an argument for this point.
3. The Urey-Miller Experiment was the only experiment that you put forward in this entire debate and was, once again, very unreliable, as a single experiment cannot justify anything, and you need multiple theories to make a point, which were provided in my previous arguments.

The comparison of the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is a valid point, but you have unsuccessfully found the two points that I actually made, to which I did not use the theory of gravity, I linked the theory of evolution to the theory that the world is flat. Which, as I stated before, is an absurd theory seeing that scientists have proved that the world is not flat, and yet some people still believe that it is. This is the same with evolution.

So no, evolution is not false
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2 3 years ago
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2
Simple stuff dude.

Why are there red squirrels and brown squirrels? They weren't created randomly, There was once dinosaurs and theyre gone. We got taller over time you can see from skeletons dating from now to back to a few million years ago.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
NewlifeghostintheshadowsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Disclaimer: I'm biased here and am a flat-earther who believes that the fossils are part of a conspiracy. Irregardless, I shall vote here and explain thoroughly why my bias isn't the reason I support Pro but did indeed influence it. Pro correctly asks Con to prove evolution in terms of intermediary fossils between species as opposed to random 'snapshot fossils' of things such as dinosaurs and other beings where there's huge gaps in between. Con brings up NASA, which I believe to be totally corrupt to its core and controlled by alien beings and then goes further as to conflate other disccoveries than evolution and the fact that people question them to say 'if you question gravity you are as invalid as someone who questions evolution'... This ad hominem attack is commonly used by round earthers and the scientific community to mock and taunt any who dare question them. Con explains microevolution and how we inherit traits from our parents but not macro evolution and proof of speciation.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.