The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Supporting evolution = pro/Against evolution = con

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
KingReece777 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 340 times Debate No: 113499
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Evolution did not really happen and is a huge scam that got really lucky. First off, I will break down the basis on the idea of evolution. When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Island chain, he claimed to see thirteen different species of birds that had different beaks which were adapted to eating what was on their island. It turns out that ALL of those birds were the same species and their beaks were just inherited traits, like blonde hair or green eyes. Also, it is impossible to have a positive mutation. Even if it was possible, the chances of it are three point four or three point six times ten to the power of over 1,800, so that's out of the question. Keep in mind that whale evolution is considered the third best example of evolution. The second best, dinosaurs to birds, is simple to defeat. There are no intermediate fossils. Oh, and did you know that some people were so desperate to prove evolution that they made nine fake intermediate fossils, including Archaeopteryx, buried them, dug them up again, and claimed to have made a major evolutionary discovery. Suspicion arose when it was found out that they were found in the same digging site as each other, and the fossils were examined. Cracks, air holes and bubbles, microscopic steel shavings, and irregularities found in the fossils proved that they were phonies. The first best example of this THEORY is apes to men, or at least Homo Erectus to men. This can also be proven false by pointing out that all of the skulls claimed to be other species in the Homo genus could easily just be weathered human skulls and other body parts, because, if you think about it, some more ancient civilizations often beat some of their people to death, leaving their skulls and other bones shaped irregularly. Another downfall to evolution is time. There is no way that there were millions and billions of years, considering that radioactive dating is inaccurate since we don't know the conditions the rock was in when formed and the forces that made it what it is now. Also, C14 dating can only date things up to 80,000 years of age. Oh, and by the way, rebuttals are the start of each round and no cursing.


Thank you to CON for providing his argument. Unfortunately he has not backed up many of his claims and if you look at the facts they state the opposite of what Con claims.

Darwin's Finches
CON states these are not actually different species. In fact not only are they different species, e.g. Geospiza conirostris [1] vs Geospiza difficilis [2] but some of them are different genus as well such as Pinaroloxias inornata as compared to Certhidea fusca with a change in genus representing an even greater biological difference than is found between species.

CON's statement that "their beaks were just inherited traits, like blonde hair or green eyes" also seems irrelevent and - if anything - CON effectively conceding his argument. Evolution is "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". [4] Con has admitted there is a change in the heritable characteristics (beak shape) of different populations over successive generations, ergo he has admitted evolution has occured.

It also seems to miss the point; the inherited characteristics of a lion (It's shape, size, colouration, behaviour, etc) are what set it apart from other species like say a mouse, whose inherited characteristics are completely different. It's kind of the entire point.

Positive Mutation
CON states that it is impossible to have a positive mutation. He then immediately contradicts himself and instead says it is just very very unlikely for there to be a beneficial mutation. He provides no proof or reasoning for either point, just inventing made-up figures.

In fact we know positive mutations occur and have observed them, both in real life and in labratory conditions.

For 30 years scientists have been running a experiment on ecoli evolution as generations of bacteria propogate quickly so they can look at evolution far faster. After about 20 years the descendents of one of the batches developed a new mutation, allowing it to respire aerobically in citrate when the inability to do this is normally one of the defining features of E Coli as a species. [5] This features continued and was passed on to the descendents of that sample.

In real life we have found that the deletion of a specific allele base pair confers a vastly increased resistance to HIV infection. [6]

Dinosaurs to Birds
Again CON instantly contradicts himself, going from there being no intermediate fossils to there being fossils, even referencing the Archaeopteryx as an example, but them being fakes. He provides no proof for his claims about them being fakes.

Not only that but we have a wide variety of different intermediate fossils showing dinosaurs developing increasingly bird-like characteristics such as the Anchiornis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Vorona, Ichthyornis and Mei Long [7][8][9][10][11][12].

Human Evolution
The skulls of the ancestors of humanity cannot be explained by weathering as CON claims (again without evidence) - the skulls are different sizes and shapes and bones cannot be beaten into new shapes. For instance the skulls of our evolutionary ancestors from a couple of million years ago have a capacity of around 600 cubic centimetres - about half that of modern humans. [13] Weathering is the wearing away of material so weathering could not explain this difference as if it had occured (magically while the fossil is encased in rock) it would have worn away the bone and resulted in an increased skull size, not a smaller one.

CON states "There is no way that there were millions and billions of years" and that C14 dating only goes to 80,000 years of age. The latter claim is technically correct, but ignores the fact that C14 dating is only one form of radioactive dating and is not the kind used to look at older fossils and minerals.

Radiometric datic is performed by looking at the decay of unstable radioactive isotypes. Different radioactive isotopes have different half-lives - the reason C14 can't be used after about 60,000 years is that it's half-life is around 5,000 years (e.g. that's the point at which half of the Carbon will have decayed into nitrogen). The radioactive decay is a physical constant related to the basic atomic structure of the isotopes and every specific type of isotope will decay along set time periods and after a certain point there'll be too little carbon left too tell you anything. Where that point is will vary from isotope to isotope

Potassium-40 on the other hand - the kind of radiometric dating actually used in this instances, has a half-life of 1.3 billion years [15], showing that there are types of radiometric dating which work along the time periods beign considered and that the Earth is billions of years old as we have masses of samples which show radioactive decay that would take billions of years to happen.

I believe that CON's claims in and of themselves require practically rebuttal as they are entirely baseless with nothing to support them; me simply saying "You have made no claims but offered no proof or reasonign to back up your claims" would have served as an adequate rebuttal. Despite this I beleive that I have thoroughly rebutted them and done so in a manner which also shows evolution is real - afterall I've literally included examples of documented evolution in my response.

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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