The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
backwardseden
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

evolution is not proven fact, it is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Anonymous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,387 times Debate No: 116698
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Pro

Can we have a science debate for a change? If so, accept this debate and we will begin next round. I would rather not waste a ton of time coming up with an argument to have the challenge declined.
backwardseden

Con

I will end this in one single round with three confirmed proofs of evolution and there's nothing you can say, think or do about it. Two of them come from One Strange Rock, since it it rather point blank obvious that you didn't watch it like I told you to. What is wrong with you that you MUST be right and everybody else is wrong? Well too bad.

Proof #1
Prof Chris Perry "After the parrot fish have eaten the coral, they then excrete it as sand." Narrator Will Smith "In one year, one fish poops out a ton of sand, literally." Chris "That same sand material that you find in parrot fish poop can be found in the islands themselves. Sometimes, on some islands the sand is made up of 70% of parrot fish poop. The parrot fish are absolutely crucial to the development of these islands." Will "But life"s not done. Fish form the fresh beach, then more life follows on. And presto. Instant island paradise."
Mike Massimino "Its kind of amazing what a small creature can do. That a bunch of little fish can build an island just by going about their daily routine. That"s quite an impact." That is absolute proof of Gaia Mother Earth working with evolution.

Proof #2
Mae Jemison "Plants here are green because our sun is green. The majority of light emitted from the sun is in the bluegreen wavelength. It doesn"t look green to us because it has light emitted in other areas to - in red and blue. And so when you blend all those together they look white. Most plants here on earth have evolved to use primarily red and blue light for photosynthesis. They reflect back the green light which is why they look green." That is PURE evolution with Gaia Mother Earth pe-ri-od.

Now you watch One Strange Rock and pay attention to actual evidence rather than shrugging off something in which you clearly know nothing about. Simply google "One Strange Rock"

Proof #3
Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.

Superbug 1.a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides.
(has developed means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now)

http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary
http://www.youtube.com... - Dan Rather Reports Addicted to Antibiotics
Dan Rather "Every year more than 90,000 Americans die from similar infections that are resistant to antibiotics. That stunning figure is higher from the death toll from AIDS, car accidents and prostate cancer combined."
http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance

The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact
No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact.

My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only religion is left to argue in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

Unfortunately, 75% of people today believe in evolution, more specifically macro-evolution. But believe me when I say that it is not because of the evidence. You will understand this as you read. But anyway Macro-evolution is the belief that one single organism reproduced and slowly developed into million of species in a process that took millions and millions of years. For example, it is believed that in the space of 2 million years, a dog can develop into a horse. A fish can develop into a bird. Now before I dive into your arguments, I am going to attack the overall concept of macro-evolution from these Scientific standpoints: The details of the fossil record, structural homology, molecular biology, and mutualism.

The Details Of The Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macro-Evolution

If Macro-evolution really happened, where is the first place you would look? Well, the most obvious place would be the fossil record. After all, if dogs did eventually give rise to horses, then we should be able to find fossils of animals somewhere between a dog and a horse. These are called transitional forms because they represent a transition from one species and another. Unfortunately, very few of these were ever found. And even those were highly questionable. So instead of finding the transitional forms that paleontologists thought they would find, they found mostly gaps. The core of macro-evolution argues that species give rise to species in a slow, gradual process that takes years on top of years. But the fossil record reveals a very different story. This is the sudden emergence of entirely new species with no apparent immediate ancestors. Consider this for a moment. Macro-evolution attempts to explain the earth's past. But because we don't have anyone who lived 20 million years ago to tell us that macro-evolution happened, we have to look for data that either support or refute the idea. The first place to look for data would be the fossil record. What does it tell us? It says macro-evolution never happened. The transitional forms that would be necessary for one life form to change to another simply do not exist. If the STRONGEST piece of data to tells us that macro-evolution never happened, scientists simply should not believe in it.

Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution:

Now to my next argument. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, it is important to understand why it was originally believed to support macroevolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs.
http://itc.gsw.edu...

In this example, the limbs of humans and cats, and horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, he supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, this would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this happens because of Mendelian genetics. You see, if structural homology was the result of common ancestry, it would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, the link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, horse, cat, bat, bird, and whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, they find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, there is absolutely no way that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. We know that this isn't even remotely close to the truth.

Molecular Biology: Strong evidence against macro-evolution

Aside from DNA, the most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, there would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below.

https://docs.google.com...

Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, the cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, you are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, that is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, that should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo.

Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9.1% difference

When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, there are 4 differences.

4/11 x 100= 36.4% difference

This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones." Well, if this were true, than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species.

https://docs.google.com...

The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms listed, the yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, the yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, it is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened.

Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution:

Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, the blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, and at the same time, the oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, this case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, the sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, the blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, if these don't happen at the exact same time, the process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible.

Conclusion:

Today there is just too much data that Macro-evolutionists completely ignore. There are a few reasons so many people believe in it today. One, if Macro-evolution is not true than you have to accept that there is a God in the equation. After all, there really isn't any other explanation other than evolution of how life originated. Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. Another reason so many people believe in evolution is because for the most part it is not allowed to be taught in high school classrooms and college classrooms. Thus, because the idea of evolution is so universal, it is the only thing that students have to base their beliefs on. There aren't many people that believe in God these days so their only option is to believe in the scientific belief of evolution. But those people have to understand one thing. Science will fail us, everything in this life will.
backwardseden

Con

Glanced through what you posted and didn't read it because it has 0% to do with what was posted in RD1 in which 100% proves evolution along with 2 of them are in perfect sync with Gaia Mother Earth. National Geographic and PBS's Frontline knows 100% better than any diatribe your dog meat buffoonery can come up with. Now you knock those 3 things presented in RD1. Until you do, do not bother me again.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

Alright then, I will address your proofs. I was going to do it in the last round, but I ran out of space.

Your Proof 1: You kinda lost me here. You said that after parrot fish have eaten coral, they excrete it as sand. Great, so fish poop out a lot of sand. It is amazing but I am a little confused on exactly how it relates to evolution. Tell me if I am wrong, I could very well be but this is what I think you are saying.

p1 Fish poop out a lot of sand

p2 That sand is crucial to the development of these islands and development of life

C Evolution must be true

The way I see it, it is a clear non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion kind of comes out of nowhere. If this is not what you are saying, please write out what you are talking about. I don't have time to watch 3 hours worth of videos. I am not having a debate with youtube, I am having it with you. It is fine to put videos as a reference to your argument but I need to at least be able to understand what you are saying without spending 3 hours watching videos. I don't think voters will do so either.

Your proof 2: Similar to your first proof, I understand what you are saying but I don't know how it supports evolution. I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens.

Your proof 3: Again, not sure how this supports evolution. I get that microbes develop immunity to antibiotics but it doesn't prove that evolution is proven fact. It doesn't make sense.

Until I fully understand your argument, there really isn't anything else I can address. If I have misunderstood your proofs, please write out in words why they support evolution. I have also laid out 4 solid proofs why evolution is false. Don't forget to address those.
backwardseden

Con

"Alright then, I will address your proofs. I was going to do it in the last round, but I ran out of space." That's not my problem. That's yours. And you say something like "I'm out of space" to let the reader know that you are out of space. Duh. Regardless, in your case its a truly miserable excuse because what you said in RD2 had 0% if nothing to do with anything that was put forth to you in RD1. Again, that's not my fault, that's yours entirely.

"Your Proof" whoa there king of the sawed of pinched nerves in the brain its nit "my proof" at all now is it? Um nope. I gave you the exact proof of who ALL 3 proofs came from. DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO LOOK THEM UP TO SEE IF THEY WERE TRUTHFUL OR NOT? Why no of course not. That's why you believe in you god. You believe in anything that is godly unto you no matter what it is, no matter how ridiculous, hateful and impoverished it is. "1: You kinda lost me here." Well duh. Gosh golly gee gosh darned it all. I just cannot imagine why. You didn't watch National Geographic's One strange Rock LIKE I TOLD YOU TO. "You said that after parrot fish have eaten coral, they excrete it as sand." I didn't say you one eared hard of hearing elf, National Geographic's One Strange Rock did. "Great, so fish poop out a lot of sand. It is amazing but I am a little confused on exactly how it relates to evolution." DID YOU EVEN BOTHER PAYING ATTENTION TO THE REST OF WHAT WAS SAID? Why is it that you are so very out of your league and NOT in any possible way in touch with reality?

Chris "That same sand material that you find in parrot fish poop can be found in the islands themselves. Sometimes, on some islands the sand is made up of 70% of parrot fish poop. ---The parrot fish are absolutely crucial to the development of these islands.--- (SCREAMING of evolution)" Will "---But life"s not done (evolution). Fish form the fresh beach (evolution), then more life follows on (evolution). And presto. Instant island paradise (evolution).---"
Mike Massimino "Its kind of amazing what a small creature can do. That a bunch of little fish can build an island just by going about their daily routine. That"s quite an impact. (SCREAMING of evolution" That is absolute proof of Gaia Mother Earth working with evolution.
Here's even Scientific American - https://www.scientificamerican.com...
Without parrot fish excretions oh those pristine beaches DIE. There would be no possible way for the islands to exist the way that they currently are. The parrot fish provide environments and preservation for countless species of whom without would die as well as new lands would not be created thus new ecological (definition 1. the branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms. wow what a great definition for Gaia Mother Earth) and its evolution would not take place.

That is the ab-so-lu-te last time I am going to even dream about repeating myself on that subject CONSIDERING THE AB-SO-LU-TE fact that you have not even lifted a single brain cell to even do an atom's worth as compared to the big bang of research on the subject. This subject is now dead. You lose.

"Your proof" AGAIN NOT---MY---PROOF. What is WRONG WITH YOU so called christians (because there is really no such a thing as a christian except for possibly 1,000 on this planet) mainly for the nearly 100% mark that you are completely inept as readers that you---can't READ. 2. No you don't understand at all what Mae Jemison from National Geographic's One Strange Rock was saying. You don't understand what she was saying at all and you know it. What she said was a complete and total baffling riddle to you. But what can one expect from one who is only 15 trying to desperately to make the grade in an adult world but failing miserably because in the real world he has no friends or loved ones?
"I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens." So you go right ahead and you do that. Then you must prove "which god". You have no idea. Then you must prove that this god of YOURS is the absolute truth and all others are false. But first you must prove that YOUR god even exists. And you must also somehow test and demonstrate that YOUR god exists. And since you do not believe that evolution is true, you must prove evolution to be false, especially here. Got it lumberjack boy? And if you cannot do it, don't even think about responding. K?

"Your proof" NOT GETTING INTO THIS drum roll please......................... YET AGAIN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ. But that's not MY PROBLEM, that's entirely YOURS. "3: Again, not sure how this supports evolution." That's because you don't understand simpleton English, and because you haven't watched ANY of the videos which is rather point blank obvious. OK I'm done.

Since you absolutely refuse to look at what evidence has been presented unto you AND others evidence that utterly slaughters you and makes you look like an utter imbecile and a complete jerk, I simply don't want to hear from you again until you do. I'm not playing your cheap teeny bopper parlor trick games anymore. Got it?
Debate Round No. 3

Pro

We are not having a debate about God, we are having a debate on evolution. My arguments will be strictly on that.

It isn't fair for you to get mad at me for not watching the videos because they are 4 hours long in total. I don't just have that amount of time floating around. None of your proofs scream evolution. Just because fish form the fresh beach does not mean evolution is true. It could mean that fish are the reason that there is sand, that's reasonable. But you took it to mean something entirely different. I really don't understand how from there we just instantly get all of the sea creatures we see today.

Please address my proofs. I have spelled out exactly why I don't believe in evolution and you haven't addressed that. Why are you getting mad at me for not addressing your proofs, which I very well have, when you haven't addressed my proofs.

Leave God out of this debate. It is titled Is evolution proven fact, not is God proven fact. If all of my proofs are true then evolution cannot be true.
backwardseden

Con

I read the first sentence of your most recent argument and that was enough you flapping easter egg vomit whackoff complete contradictory hypocrite. What the fluke in a dumpster of toy pee-nuts do you think you did in RD2 as you yammer on about YOUR god? And when you state something completely ignorant as you did in RD3 "I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens." Then you beltchingly need to back up what you say in which you cannot do and you know it. Since you can't then you have no business in saying it unless you WANT to be pegged as a square peg lost in a samurai's splitting headache. So naturally since I am a lot better at this than you are, I called you on your bluff, and you just cannot stomach it because you have to invent excuses of all kinds because you have no answers. So I question you on follow-ups to your moronic god in which ---YOU--- opened the gates upon like a can of tin foiled sardines in both RD2 and in RD3, in which case you, as always, do not have ANY answers to, you clam up like cement in a toaster oven. Oh and btw you darling pathetic little gimp who has no friends or loved ones and wants to keep it that way, ALL of proofs 1 & 3 were entirely about evolution in RD3. OK we're done. You had your chance.

OMG I just skimmed through "Please address my proofs." I am trying so hard to not put my fist through YOUR computer in which you deserve. I get it. I really do. You must think that you, a punk kid who has no friends or loved ones who in absolutely no possible way can back up what he says with any evidence whatsoever, is better than National Geographic, Scientific American, PBS's Frontline in which case knows one helluva lot better than you. Are you kidding that "I" am going to address "your" proofs? National Geographic, Scientific American, PBS's Frontline and others already did. I don't have to do anything to prove anything. Se haba ingles?

You blew it. Bye.
Debate Round No. 4

Pro

Con must concede if he cannot answer these questions:

1. If evolution is true, then why aren't we seeing transitional forms from species to species?

2. If complex life forms evolved from simple ones, then why aren't we seeing the macroevolutionary relationships to prove it?

3. Even if God does not exist, does that mean that evolution must be true?

4. How does macroevolution explain mutualism?

Evolution is just not logical. It attempts to make excuses as you would put it and explain around all of the many, many objections to it. So unless you can respond, you must concede.

Throughout all of our debates, you have insulted me rather than attack my arguments. "You must think that you, a punk kid who has no friends or loved ones who in absolutely no possible way can back up what he says with any evidence whatsoever"

I am going to be honest, I have never had anything against you. Where this is coming from I HAVE NO IDEA. Your whole thing about me inventing excuses, lying, being a jerk, it is all a figment of your imagination. If You actually attack my arguments, that would be great. But until you stop attacking me, I don't think I can have any more debates with you.
backwardseden

Con

Do not ---ever--- bother me again, not for any reason. Just because you are a complete failure in everything which obviously includes life itself, it doesn't mean that ---everybody--- is. Evolution was proved unto you with 3 different proofs backed upped with something called ---evidence--- and 3 completely different viable and reliable sources that are better than you in which quote 'You kinda lost me here" and "I honestly could say it is God's design why that happens." in which you didn't prove and "It doesn't make sense." So that proves only ---ONE--- thing... all you have is your mouth.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adrian14 2 years ago
Adrian14
As Jackgilbert proved in this debate, Evolution is a perfect example of how so many people can believe something, But are all wrong
Posted by qwaszxplm 3 years ago
qwaszxplm
very interesting debate I have to say, but both of you went off talking about your own ideas......

about conduct.... backwardseden, i loved your conduct but it gets in the way of the argument. Try splitting your argument with your insults. This will make both of them more interesting (^_^)lll
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
"I think you are self deceived and deep down you really do know that God exists.You just can't admit it."

Said every Creationist ever XD
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@jackgilbert - Consider learning evolution from an unbiased source. That textbook has done you no favours when it comes to understanding evolution beyond superficiality
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
backwardseden, I think you are self deceived and deep down you really do know that God exists.You just can't admit it.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I will address your arguments in my next post.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Source: Exploring Creation with Biology by Wile and Durnell
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@jackgilbert - DO NOT ever for any reason even think or dream in that teeny tiny little teeny bopper brain of yours of sending me an email, a post, a debate or a whatever for any reason until you are willing ready and able to prove on your end some of the questions that I have asked of you. Got it you punk kid? And DO NOT play stupid and not pretend to not know what they are. Again I have them in my email. I know EXACTLY what I asked. And so do you. You CLEARLY lost this debate. You know it. You have no answers. That's because it is truly impossible for you to look at things from an opposing end - just as ANY GOOD debater does. That's why you SUCK at debating. That's why you have no friends or loved ones, a HUGE red flag and soooooo easy to spot. You cannot possibly back up anything you say with ---evidence--- that is truthful and credible so that people will believe you and not insult you and or walk away from you. Got it?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@LoveRichardDawkins - Yeah the darling little maggot lice infected gangrene garbage scow toxica large tummy growl for-fits every single time his ideals do not suit up to his ruler and tie that strangles him.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
LoveRichardDawkins. I misunderstood my position. I thought you were arguing on whether or not creationism is real, but I read your argument and it was whether or not creationism should be allowed to be taught in any schools which is kind of dumb. It would be a complete violation of the 1st amendment.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
AnonymousbackwardsedenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a "hypocrite" in round four. This is poor conduct.

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