Instigator
Points: 4

The colors God chose to design animals with were made with intelligent choices

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Nature
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 14
Description
Here are examples so you get the idea.
When Nintendo was creating Pikachu the Pokemon character they made intelligent choices when designing pikachu.
The reason why Nintendo chose to design pikachu yellow was because lightning is yellow.
so Nintendo chose to color pikachu yellow to go with yellow lightning bolts. so the coloring was intelligently chosen
The weasel is white during the winter. but brown during the summer.
God created the weasel to turn white during the winter to go with the white snow. That is an intelligent choice.
Nintendo created Pikachu yellow to go with yellow lightning bolts. That is an intelligent choice
Round 1
Published:
It certainly has the appearance of perfect design, yet there are other ways to achieve that, specifically natural selection.

Im not sure how well of an analogy pikachu, blue bunnies, or any marketing ploy is for evolution. They dont reproduce nor pass on information the way life does. However, natural selection (or in this case market selection, you may already have an idea where im going with this) does still function and can easily result in an equally perfect outcome.

The design of pikachu was not made by a perfect being, but by a limited number of fallible people. Designing it to match lightning may have been the way to go, or perhaps a cooler black with yellow lightning streaks. Maybe blue or green due to the colors being fashionable atm. Or some other color to fit the pallate of the show or whatever. And in a natural market there are no intellectual property protections, so similar "species" with slightly different designs and colors will quickly pop up.

Ultimately the environment (consumers) will focus in on whichever turns out to be most desireably features given their demand environment, and other designs will go extinct. Leaving only the perfect yellow one which in all appearances, looks suspiciously perfect for the environment that has selected him.

Without looking at the actual past, both perfection by design, and perfection by elimination equally explain the outcome. Neither can be simply dismissed as illogical. It is using facts, not guesses, that we will figure out which one is the actual truth.

I believe this answer applies to all examples given. Attaching it to the actual natural examples like lions fits even more naturally for this natural explanation. Puns intended.

In addition, there isnt always only one champion. Sometimes theres a jiggly puff, or a digimon. Sometimes just 1, sometimes a few contenders, sometimes many. Why the seemingly randomness? Of course we can never tell what the creator might be thinking, but selection explains it just as naturally. The contest is not yet decided. Or a new contender came from left field. Or a environment change leading to new preferences. The beauty of evolution is that in a few simple concepts, all of biology falls into place like a jigsaw. Everything we see, everything we find, before and after its inception simply makes sense in light of the mutation/selection duality. It is as elegant as E=MC2, and just as universal (to life as we know it).

It can be argued that ever adapting evolution is the perfect creation for an imperfection, everchanging world. I dont think the bible goes deep into any science. Wasnt its purpose moral guidance? Which science does the bible go into detail on?
Round 2
Published:
Your missing the point. Those were examples. 


Blue bunny ice cream company has a blue bunny as there mascot. the color of there bunny mascot is no accident. The reason why the bunny is blue is so the blue bunny would go well with the blue bunny name. The coloring was an intelligent choice.
The reason pikachu is yellow is no accident. The reason why pikachu is yellow is because lightning is yellow. The coloring was an intelligent choice.
I am claiming that god used the same logic as blue bunny company and Nintendo did when choosing colors for his animals.
God colored the weasel white to go with the white snow. The coloring is no accident. the coloring was an intelligent choice.



Coloring in depth
God created the weasel to turn white so that it can go with the white winter. God color choice was no accident.  God colored the weasel white to go with the white snow.


A race car driver drives a green car. So he decides to were green cloths.  So it goes with the green car. The green color was no accident. Because the race car driver got a green shirt to go with the green car. This is to show the logic god used when creating the weasel. Because the race car driver made the same intelligent choice as god did when designing animals.


I paint my house blue but i decide to also paint my mailbox blue to go with the blue house. The blue coloring was no accident. Because  I painted the  house blue  to go with the blue Mailbox


God created the rabbits white during the winter so that it can go with the white snow. God coloring of the rabbits was no accident.Because  God colored the rabbit white because snow is white.

Or i have a white house so i color the fence around it white to go with the white fence. Me coloring the fence was no accident.


Or me wearing a red shirt so i decide to wear red pants to go with it. My red shirt choice was no accident. Because i chose the red shirt to go with the red pants.

Or God coloring Alaska owls white to go with the white snow. The white owls was no accident. Because God colored the Owl white to go with the white snow.




coloring trees


god colored trees green to go with the green grass. The green coloring was no accident


This is like how god created the seasonal rabbit to turn brown to white so that the rabbit would go with the white snow. The white coloring wan no accident


Or if Santa clause wears red. so he paints his sleigh red to go with it. The red coloring was an intelligent choice


or if i have a brick house so i build a brick mailbox to go with the brick mailbox. me picking brick was an intelligent choice.




Evolution is impossible

point 1

Mutations occur if the repair mechanisms re-attach the wrong piece of DNA back together
Why would a mistake turn a monkey into a human.


point 2

our DNA repair system  prevent mutations.so evolution is impossible

cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence.
A radio paster originally said this chuck

Point 3

. Chlorophyllin is one of the most promising agents to protect against these deadly gene mutations.

Chlorophyll makes Chlorophyllin. Chlorophyll is what makes plants green. so it is impossible for all plant eaters to evolve because they eat green grass which prevents mutations.


Point 4

Mutations lead to infertility. So evolution is impossible

When gene mutate has gone to far. you loose the ability to reproduce. God did this so animals can not turn into other animals like evolution states. so natural process  is impossible. Evolution whole thing is animals mutating then passing it on by reproducing.
That's why GMO food can not reproduce.



Point 5
There fruits and vegetables that repair dna. For example kiwi fruits repair 5 genes.

The kiwi fruit industry wanted to know what medicinal purposes there plant had. so they funded a bunch of experiments. They found that when you consume a kiwi you repair 5 genes.




By video 2 They went forward with there experiments. But with other fruits and they found that the group that ate 4 different kinds of berries with  kiwi  repaired 25 genes. They ate bilberry raspberry blackberry kiwi and strawberry and repaired 25 genes. 5 genes per fruit.precise number 5


What will i become a monkey if i repair my DNA. because i am undoing the mutations done by my DNA


Rebuttal

Im not sure how well of an analogy pikachu, blue bunnies, or any marketing ploy is for evolution. They dont reproduce nor pass on information the way life does. Howeve
Evolution animals do not reproduce either. Mutations lead's to infertility


The design of pikachu was not made by a perfect being, but by a limited number of fallible people. Designing it to match lightning may have been the way to go, or perhaps a cooler black with yellow lightning streaks. Maybe blue or green due to the colors being fashionable atm. Or some other color to fit the pallate of the show or whatever. And in a natural market there are no intellectual property protections, so similar "species" with slightly different designs and colors will quickly pop up.

Ultimately the environment (consumers) will focus in on whichever turns out to be most desireably features given their demand environment, and other designs will go extinct. Leaving only the perfect yellow one which in all appearances, looks suspiciously perfect for the environment that has selected him.

The example of the pikachu and blue bunny were to show what kind of color choices god was using.

Why the seemingly randomness?
Nothing is random i have 5 finger and 5 toes.

Most animals have 4 legs 2 eyes 2 ears. etc  most insects have 6 12 or 24 legs.

The sun is round the moon is round some planets are round.

Published:
Yes, they were examples of perfect selection for an environment. To that outcome, i agree. 

What i demonstrated is that the outcome, that we both agree is perfect for its environment, could have just as easily arisen from selection and elimination, as it could by design. 

The weasel/rabbit is white because animals with whiter fur had an easier time finding food and not becoming food. Similar animals with different colors, over time, died off and the entire population became white. While in warmer regions, whiter fur was a bad thing and the population became a different color.

Such microevolutions are agreed upon even within the creationist community. You are mass bombing me with potentially infinite redundant examples, that doesnt make your argument any stronger. The selection method applies to them all.

The idea of selection sufficiently explains how a perfect result could come about without design, the idea of mutation is necessary to produce such variability. Regarding your question of perfect features, we only need what creationists call "microevolutions" making for small differences like color. Speciation is not needed for this debate. However i shall entertain any misunderstandings i can.

Evolution misunderstandings/ intentional oversimplifications

1. A mistake did not turn a monkey into a human. A monkey is not an ape. Both monkeys and apes are primates. You do understand humans are animals? Animals have taxonomy. You should look up human toxonomy. You are fundamentally confused on this issue.

A mistake only creates variations with no purpose or meaning. It is the environment that guides those variation towards a purpose, long term survival. Mistakes lead to "microevolutions" like thinner hair, different food tolerance, slight posture changes. Environment decides if those changes stay or go, as more changes continue to happen. Thus species change. 


2. Cells have repair mechanisms for DNA that are very effective, yet we still get mutations. The repairs are not perfect. You use the existence of mutations in points 1 and 4, so this point is inconistent with your anti evolution arguments. 

3. Protect does not mean stop completely, as evident by the mutations that do occur. You can drink antioxidants that protext against cancer, but that doesnt gaurantee cancer wont occur....

In addition nature supplements mutations with retrovirus DNA which can insert itself into our genome and add fresh variation to the code.



4. from your own link:
At present, there are only a handful of genes or genetic defects that have been shown to cause, or to be strongly associated with, primary infertility.
What are you trying to prove?
Do you think mutations dont happen at all due to repair mechanisms? Or they happen and are bad? Your arguments are inconsistent. You are reaching for any brach that itches an anti-evolution scratch no matter how contradictory those points are.

Some mutations are bad, some mutations cause infertility. Those mutations are unlikely to pass on. Despite the chaos of mutations, selection provides constant order.


5. Same answer as with other repair arguments. Repairs are imperfect as evident by changes that do happen, and changes acknowledged by you in points 1 and 4. 

Making the same argument repeatedly in different forms by just changing the examples is not more arguments. 

Extra. Some people are born with 6 fingers are toes. If gods design is perfect that would not happen. This random variability is more proof of genetic change.

Round is a general category, which is why you didnt say sphere. It can be of different degrees of oblong. It is certainly not flat due to logical, natural force of gravity, but a great amount of variation still occurs. 

Round 3
Published:
A short summary of my argument.


God  put the white owl in the snow over the yellow and brown owl. Because the white owl matches the white snow.

An example that make the same intelligent choice.


 I pick the red chair to go with the red table over the yellow chair and blue chair because the red chair matches the red table.

Both of these are intelligent choices.





In depth version of what i said above

  I am looking to buy a chair for my red table. I get the choice to buy a blue chair, green chair, or a red chair. I choose a red chair to go with my red table. The choice was an intelligent choice. I chose the red chair over the blue and green because it matches my red table. God made the same intelligent choices when designing animals. An example  would be  God is looking for an owl to put in Alaska. he has three option to pick from a yellow colored owl, a brown colored owl, or a white colored owl. He picks the white colored owl to put in Alaska. The choice was an intelligent choice. God chose to put the white owl in the white snow over the yellow or brown owl is because the white owl matches the white snow. It was an intelligent choice. He makes the same intelligent choice with all animals. He put the yellow owl with the yellow desert. he puts the brown owl to go with the brown logs of a tree.


So recap

So i pick the red chair to go with the red table over the yellow chair and blue chair because the red chair matches the red table.

God picked to put the white owl in the snow over the yellow and brown owl because the white owl matches the white snow.


Evolution
Firstly evolution can go with the idea of an intelligent creator. Dr Franklin the fellow who is talking about the liberal problem we have on this site. Believe that evolution was gods way of creating life. So the ideas can go together. Though i disagree with this. I have come to realize the Coloring of animals are not an accident.So even you somehowprove evolution correct. It does not change the fact that this is an intelligent choice.



Evolution mutations
I believe there is to much to stop evolution from happening. there are to many thing that would prevent mutations and would stop evolution. My extensive list in the last round points that out. I did not say Mutations can not happen. They can. I can get a mutation that can cause cancer. But i don't think these things are so flawed that they would not be able to prevent mutations like another animal turning into another animal.

Mutations lead to infertility so how can evolution happen. would not this lead to Animals becoming infertile




Rebuttal

What i demonstrated is that the outcome, that we both agree is perfect for its environment, could have just as easily arisen from selection and elimination, as it could by design. 
The fact that you admit the animals are made perfectly for there environments means you subconsciously realize god created life.Do you know what backmasking is. It is wear they put a hidden message in music or a movie that you find if you play the movie or music backwards. like an Ariana grande song if you play it backwards you get hail Satan. The reason why they do this is because  you do hear hail Satan when the music plays. but only subconsciously. you do not hear it out loud but you brain is an amazing thing. it still recognizes the message and picks it up subconsciously .  Even though you do not recognize it. you subconsciously do. You have subconsciously realize god created life

1. A mistake did not turn a monkey into a human. A monkey is not an ape. Both monkeys and apes are primates. You do understand humans are animals? Animals have taxonomy. You should look up human toxonomy. You are fundamentally confused on this issue.
Ok why did a mistake turn an primate to a human.

Mutations occur if the repair mechanisms re-attach the wrong piece of DNA back together
I could understand why an mistake would turn a humane to a primate. But not the other way around.





The weasel/rabbit is white because animals with whiter fur had an easier time finding food and not becoming food. Similar animals with different colors, over time, died off and the entire population became white. While in warmer regions, whiter fur was a bad thing and the population became a different color.
Its an intelligent choice. God created the weasels white so they hide better and not become food.
Weasels are brown during the summer but white during the winter. God created the weasel white so it can go with the white snow. similar to how if i have a blue blanket so i get a blue pillow to go with it. It is an intelligent choice




Environment decides if those changes stay or go, as more changes continue to happen. Thus species change. 


Environment can not decide which changes stays or goes. Only an intelligent being can make choices



Cells have repair mechanisms for DNA that are very effective, yet we still get mutations. The repairs are not perfect. You use the existence of mutations in points 1 and 4, so this point is inconistent with your anti evolution arguments. 
It is not flawed enough to wear it would not stop another animal into turning into another animal. mutations do happen but they would stop the mutations that cause evolution

Mutations lead to infertility. people with mutations can breed. but those are much smaller then the ones described in evolution. The ones in evolution can not happen.



 Some people are born with 6 fingers are toes. If gods design is perfect that would not happen. This random variability is more proof of genetic change.
God created man with with 5 fingers and 5 toes this is a precise number. God counted them out. he counted Adam and eve when designing them.and we inherited the 5 fingers from them. But our genetic information can get screwed up when we breed. Which is why people can be born with  6 fingers. The information in the DNA got screwed up.

God created both my right hand exactly the same size as my left. This is because god measured me out or to be more exact he measured Adam and eve  out and i inherited these perfect measurements/information. Some people can be off by a couple mm. This is because the information in our DNA can get corrupted. Which is why some people are not born symmetrical.


Think of it like this.
I precisely set my alarm clock at 7:30 for work. The power Goes out. My alarm clock does not go off at 7:30. The fact the power went out does not change the fact that i dialed it to go off at 7:30.

We broke after Adam ate the forbidan fruit. Which is why we have flaws


In addition nature supplements mutations with retrovirus DNA which can insert itself into our genome and add fresh variation to the code.

There plants that add genes to us. God created medicine for everything. There are so many DNA repair foods. pls tell me


Published:
The original argument has not changed, my rebuttal that selection can come to the same outcome was not challenged. I see no need to address potentially infinite similar examples. I shall skip to the section labeled "evolution"

Evolution
Firstly evolution can go with the idea of an intelligent creator. Dr Franklin the fellow who is talking about the liberal problem we have on this site. Believe that evolution was gods way of creating life. So the ideas can go together. Though i disagree with this. I have come to realize the Coloring of animals are not an accident.So even you somehowprove evolution correct. It does not change the fact that this is an intelligent choice

As i said in the comments. Im not arguing against god, i am arguing in defense of science. If you come to the conclusion that god created life and the universe via the methods discovered by science, i will rest my case.

Evolution mutations
I believe there is to much to stop evolution from happening. there are to many thing that would prevent mutations and would stop evolution. My extensive list in the last round points that out. I did not say Mutations can not happen. They can. I can get a mutation that can cause cancer. But i don't think these things are so flawed that they would not be able to prevent mutations like another animal turning into another animal. 

Mutations lead to infertility so how can evolution happen. would not this lead to Animals becoming infertile

Your very own article referencing the inferitility from mutations openly stated that only a few mutated genes can lead to infertility. I quoted that line, you ignored that line. You can win the lottery =/= you will in the lottery. Very very few mutations lead to infertility. Thats because only a few genes code for fertility, as opposed to EVERYTHING ELSE going on in a living thing.

You can get cancer in a few decades of life, what will happen in millenia? Eons? You dont change from a fish to a bird. A fish doesnt suddenly give birth to a bird. These oversimplifications are hilarious. Of course those are wrong. Over many many many many generations, an entire species of fish gradually becomes a species of birds. Flying fish may be on the way there. They just need to better waterproof their skins and find a new filter for oxygen. They wont instantly survive outside of water, but each generation might survive outside of water longer.


The fact that you admit the animals are made perfectly for there environments means you subconsciously realize god created life.

No it does not. I maticulously explained this exact eesult can be easily achirved by the environment picking the animal perfect for it out of a multitude of candidates. I consciously argued against that. Perhaps your reading into my thoughts ended up simply being a mirror into your own? Assuming is bad.


I could understand why an mistake would turn a humane to a primate. But not the other way around.

Primate:
"All primates are descended from tree-dwellers, exhibiting adaptations which allow for tree climbing that include: a rotating shoulder joint, separated big toes and thumb for grasping, and stereoscopic vision. Other primate characteristics include: having one offspring per pregnancy, claws evolved into flattened nails; and larger brain/body ratio than other mammals, and tendency to hold body upright." 

Humans are primates. You essentially asked me how an Kentuckian can become an American! Please, look up human taxonomy. Or taxonomy in general.


Environment can not decide which changes stays or goes. Only an intelligent being can make choices

Being chosen by an environment means you excel in it.
Not being chosen, means you couldnt survive.


It is not flawed enough to wear it would not stop another animal into turning into another animal. mutations do happen but they would stop the mutations that cause evolution


Are you saying that the repair mechanism makes choices as to which genes to repair and which genes not? These are automated processed that like all things in this world, are imperfect. Random mistakes are made, and those mistakes build up over time. In addition, you did not address the addition of viral dna that greatly increases variability.



Conclusion
Just like the free market can select a perfect product design out of numerous candidates, the environment can select the perfect design for the creature within it. In either method the outcome is perfect, and it is impossible to rule either option out by looking only at the outcome.

Thank you very much for having this debate with me. This was my first debate here. Any tips or criticisms appreciated. Cheers! 😁

Added:
Half way through voting bump
Contender
#33
Added:
--> @crossed
Colors may have been chosen intelligently, or they could have been chosen randomly and only the best one survived.
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I don't think entire species of animals would die out because they have different colors then there environment. I don't care if Pikachu was designed perfectly or not. All i care about is the coloring was an intelligent choice. Nintendo chose to color Pikachu yellow because lightning is yellow.God chose to design weasels white because snow is white.
Instigator
#31
Added:
Please don't let this end with a tie.
Contender
#30
Added:
--> @crossed
This seems like a repeat pattern. How can you expect to open minds if yours is closed?
Contender
#29
Added:
--> @crossed
I did understand. Based on outcome, a design by intelligence is a logical possibility. All im saying is that selection from a large pool of variability can equally result in a perfect outcome. Besides, its not like the design of pikachu is trully perfect, its just really really good.
Contender
#28
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I was hoping you would understand.
Instigator
#27
Added:
Serval is no longer my profile pic
this is a serval
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10iJpm5ix0BZHXwOMYS1Q9TOW7X_cV4apOOJ-b0AQuwg/edit
Instigator
#26
Added:
God is so amazing. God colored the animal species called Serval intelligently.
The Serval is my new profile pic
Anyway. The serval right ear has a cool design. but on the second ear is exactly the same design. God colored it intelligently
https://youtu.be/vl-PcTA9HHg?t=84
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
And most importantly, i dont think the current trajectory is sustainable. If you have an alternative solution to an increasing bottom class falling out of our economy, and the macro effects of that, I would love to hear it.
Contender
#24
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
I understand your concern, but you have not addressed the increase in spending, and new businesses, especially in the regions that need it most. The increased purchasing would offset some of the increased cost, while the increase in business will necessitate more jobs, not less, which will be a huge boost for the economy.
Furthermore not all costs will rise. Rents (a large part of our costs) derives most of its value from the value of the land, not labor involved with it. Thus rents wont go up that much. Healthcare as well does not involve as much low wage work as the restaurant industry, so it will not increase much either. The effect you are citing is not as universal as you may believe
Only a limited amount of services will go up in price, but far from all, and far from the most costly ones.
In conclusion (of this post)
1. Increased patronage will offset costs and limit job cuts.
2. Many costs will not increase, including rent which is 30-50% of many peoples income.
Contender
#23
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
Giving poor people higher salaries won't do anything, it will just cause inflation. In order for the salary/price ration to actually increase, the amount of wealth in a country has to increase. A higher salary won't equal more wealth if all the prices go up as well. It would be extremely unprofitable for companies to be forced to increase their salaries, and so they will have to raise prices as well. Giving people more money will not cause a boost in demand if all the prices increase as well.
#22
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
Min wage is not related to corporate subsidies, but government assistance like welfare and food stamps for those who are employed are a payroll subsidy. Full time workers should not be qualifying for government assistance.
Your conclusion is not always the case. When companies increase in profit, they dont always raise salaries, not if they have no need to. So when profits decrease, especially these companies with more money then small nations, they can absorb some loss.
But more importantly companies will see an increase in customers. Sure stores in beverly hills might not see an increase, but their customers can afford higher prices. We have many many areas with no businesses besides fast food, liquor stores, and bodegas. That is where minimum wage will have the most effect and the increase in income can turn into a boom of new businesses entering this previously forgotten area. The areas that most need the income boost, have the most unmet demand, and will see the largest increase in patronage. Their costs may not go up at all with the increase in sales covering the lower margins.
Contender
#21
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I'm also against subsidizing corporations, but a minimum wage is not related to that.
If companies are forced to raise salaries, they will raise prices to keep the same profit margin. This makes any minimum wage pointless.
#20
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
I think minimum wage can and should have a ripple effect lifting up near min wage wages up as well. However, a substantial part of our workforce is at minimum wage. Combined with rising costs, this substantial segment may soon be unable to effectively participate in the economy, and that will be a major blow to the economy. As income becomes increasingly concentrated, more and more people will fall into the paycheck to paycheck category.
One can view many of our entitlement programs as being a corporate payroll subsidy as many on government assistance are also employed. Without minimum wage/entitlement programs, many of these jobs would not be worth it. With a living wage, many entitlements can be cut, which could then allow for sensible tax cuts. Its time the taxpayer stop subsidizing these (highly profitable) corporations. Im all for small/new business exceptions/assistance.
Contender
#19
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Massive BoP failure. Pro basically tries the Chewbacca Defense to prove God, without ever showing evidence which implies God to even be more likely than Pikachu.
Pro again goes into his numbers thing, trying to say that the random number of fingers and toes is proof that God counted them (and badly for those of us with six instead of five). And that mutation is the blame if the count is off, but he insists such is impossible because God does not allow it to happen (con wisely points out that we have a name for it because of how often it does... so pro's argument is if God then no mutation, but since mutation therefore no God.).
Con makes an unchallenged case for selective pressures causing some variants to die out, resulting in the limited color pallet we see.
Sources go to con for flipping pro's own source to be a concession that pro is wrong (he would not have read it and shared it with us knowing that unless he agreed that he's wrong...). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885174/
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pros incredible lack of understanding in addition to a complete lack of evidence that God did any of the things Pro alleges he did gave argument points swiftly to Con who presented far more feasible and probable reasons for the design of animals compared to pros arguments. Round 2 in particular showed Pro's complete lack of knowledge in evolution and how it works, where Pro goes so far to claim that 'genetic mutations can be prevented so evolution is impossible' and 'it is impossible for all plant eaters to evolve because they eat green grass which prevents mutations', both of which are objectively wrong and incredibly stupid statements to claim. Argument points easily won by Con.
Source points also go to con since pro's sources come from either youtube or incredibly biased and misinformed religious sites. One of his sources literally is from a Pastor talk show where Pro only cites the link and leaves it at that rather then elaborate on what the link is even arguing.
Clear-cut win by Con here.