The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Is evolution 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  
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: 2/9/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,117 times Debate No: 69740
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I am arguing that evolution is false.


I accept this challenge. Some definitions before we start:
Evolution: a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time
Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

Another thing. While i agree that the use of the Bible is allowed, please use it as a piece of evidence that can be refuted. Not as the absolute undeniable truth
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with your terms so let's begin...

First off I believe that science supports creation and a creator.
The more we learn about life the harder it is to believe in evolution.
Since both creation and evolution have never been witnessed we can only go off evidence we find now,meaning that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creation.


1) Con states that science supports creation, however he cites no evidence. I would like to point out that this is a debate about evolution so the existence of a creator is not in question here. As for the creation part he does not evaluate, so i can not accurately respond. I hope that Con can evaluate this, as I am interested in how this is true.
2) My opponent states "The more we learn about life the harder it is to believe in evolution." However he cites no evidence nor does he evaluate on this. The fact of the matter is that if you look at DNA it becomes clear that we share quite a bit of it with other animals.
3) Evolution on a small scale has been witnessed. It is called micro-evolution and is a proven scientific fact. These small changes accumulate over millions of years into big changes
4) Assuming that Con believes in creationism (forgive me if I'm wrong) how does he respond to fossils that have been carbon dat
Debate Round No. 2


Micro-evolution is when living creatures evolve within their genetic code.
Macro-evolution is when living creatures evolve and changing their genetic code.
Macro-evolution has never been observed and micro-evolution is a very common occurrence.

You mentioned carbon dating. Carbon dating does not help prove evolution at all if anything it proves creation,because carbon has a half life of 5,730 years and so if only one quarter of carbon is present than the theoretical age would be 11,460 years. At 50,000 years carbon should be undetectable. So if you date things using carbon than they could only be dated within a few thousand years,not millions.

Evolution has a major flaw no non-living object can become living.


1) Keep in mind that the theory of evolution takes place over millions of years. The fact that micro-evolution has been detected in the presence of modern science (300-400 years) is an extraordinary case for evolution. Even if it is one trait at a time, does it not make sense that the affects of micro-evolution add up over time? Some micro-evolution can occur within the space of 50 years. Since most are caused by mutations (A permanent change) it makes sense that over millions of years a large chunk of DNA is changed.
2) Since you have not refuted my assumption that you believe in creationism i must assume it's true. Your religion states that the world is 6,000 years old. Yet carbon dating has found organic materials well over 10,000 years old (The Wooly Mammoth for example)
3) Con has dropped the science argument, that should not be considered.
4) Con has dropped my DNA Argument. I extend all my points
5) The definition of evolution says nothing on the creation of life.
Debate Round No. 3


I could not fit my whole point in with just 1,000 letters.
DNA is way to complex to come from random chance.
You say that we share quit a bit of DNA with other animals and that is true,but one would expect some similarities if we were all made by one creator.
When you look at Crytochrome C in a horse it is closer to bacteria than yeast so does this prove that horses evolved from bacteria than into yeast?
Yeast should have been the next simplest life form.
To answer a comment,Gregor Mendel the father of genetics did not show macro-evolution he studied genetics and showed that species had to stay within their genetic code, this is the opposite of macro-evolution. He also believed in God.


"DNA is way to complex to come from random chance."
This does not link to evolution. Again we are going off the definition of evolution provided, which says nothing on the origin of life. For all the relevance this has, God could have placed the first bacteria on Earth, and they evolved from there. We have seen extraordinary changes in the genetic code in bacteria on a yearly basis.

As for the Horse Yeast argument, I do not understand this, or any relevance. I ask Con to rephrase this so i can better argue against it

Con has not responded to the Carbon Dating argument. I extend all of my points.

As my opponent himself stated in round two, neither creationism nor macro-evolution have been witnessed. While i agree on this, I must point out that evolution is the far more plausible of the two. Creationism hinges on a single piece of evidence. Evolution has been, and still is supported by almost every biologist on the planet, and both fossil records and real world observations.
Debate Round No. 4


Con has not responded to the Carbon Dating argument.'
I did answer about carbon dating in round three.

Most people say ape and humans DNA is 98% identical. This is not true,humans have twice as many genes in their Y chromosomes as apes and the structures are different. Apes would need to add 41 genes,this is impossible because apes do not have a 'gene generating system.'

So in conclusion I think that creationism is the most scientific explanation.


"I did answer about carbon dating in round three."
While this is true, I must point out that I responded to that argument, also in round three. I brought up points that Con has not refuted. Therefore since organic matter has been carbon dated to a time before Creationism was said to exist, and my opponent has not responded to it, voters should vote Pro.
As for the apes argument. His argument is flawed. Genes are measured, not in how many there are, but rather how similar genes present are to humans. We can disregard that argument.
In the comments section there is a very good explanation of genetics and how evolution is true. I will not post it due to character limits and to avoid discrediting the original poster.I will not extend this as my own argument, but i do encourage potential voters to look at it if they want a more scientific explanation of the subject.

While I thank everyone for an excellent debate, I see nothing but a Pro win
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
why is it that creationist seem so uneducated? Faith teaches nothing but to believe with out question.
Posted by GreenFuture 3 years ago
I would like to point out to my scientific friend the cases of both ribosomal RNA and also mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Both of these forms of genetic material have very little non functional coding material that is to say genetic stuff they could do without, this leads to a high level of preservation. If you have dodgy ribosomal RNA or mitochondrial DNA you will likely not be around long if at all to talk about it. This high degree of fidelity in genetic material means that mutations that are not deleterious occur infrequently and are easily traceable. This has lead to extremely accurate trees of life that can trace DNA and RNA right back to some of our earliest ancestors such as archea, which have remained relatively unchanged throughout the earth's lifetime. This is done by tracing cumulative mutations that follow hereditary lines, the evidence from this is better than any fossil record as there is no known cell that does not possess ribosomes and some scientists believe that a form of ribosome may have been one of the earliest self replicating units of genetic code and a direct precursor t living cells. A final note to the zealot if he wishes to stick to his/her fossil "guns". There is a comprehensive fossil record and the "gaps" you quote are small and only getting smaller with progressive discoveries. It is also a circular argument as it requires defined species that do not exist, an ape is not suddenly a man as much as a rock is not suddenly soil, it is a slow transition over long geological time-scales so to directly observe "macro-evolution"(the diversion, separation, extinction of interim species and the eventual specieation) in a human lifetime is impossible
Posted by Bahamute619 3 years ago
On an insect level and rodent level we currently see macroevolution. That is how some diseases and behaviors are studied. Not to mention but we have seen the effects of macroevolution through studies of Darwin and Mendel. It would also be impractical to look for fossil records because evolution is about small changes in the DNA therefore we compare the similarities and differences in the genome of multiple species. Also in biology there is a study of similar functional organs and bones in living species called the phylogenetic tree.
Posted by BoggyB 3 years ago
Previous commenter has a point, no transitional fossil records, lack of evidence, and no observation of macroevolution. Con, you should drop the religious part of debate and just attempt to disprove evolution. Also Pros DNA argument isn't very strong. Adaptions can only occur so much until the DNA can no longer change, this one species can't arise from another only due to slow and small changes over time. The mutation argument then becomes easy to disprove.
Posted by me37825 3 years ago
While evolution seems logical, there is some missing information. Where are the fossil records that show one species slowly transitioning into another? Maybe scientists have not found them yet, but until then it is hard to say evolution is true.
Posted by RavenDebater 3 years ago
Forgive me, i ran out of characters. that last part says Carbon Dating back Millions of years.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con largely made assertions but failed to back them up adequately. Pro dismantled these effectively and established arguments that supported his position. Con did not cite any sources.