Instigator / Pro

The Theory of Evolution is not Scientifically Tenable


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 2 votes and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 548 / 5,000

Resolved: Science contradicts the theory of evolution at vital points, rendering evolution indefensible.

1. Opening Statements
2. Rebuttal and Questions
3. Defense
4. Closing Arguments and Summary

The burden of proof is shared. It is my burden of proof to show how the theory of evolution fails to be scientifically tenable, and it is Con’s burden of proof to demonstrate how evolution retains scientific integrity.

1. No round forfeits
2. It should go without saying, but keep it respectful
3. No new arguments in the final round

--> @Pinkfreud08

>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

--> @David

>Reported Vote: Virtuoso // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
If there is no counterargument to the vast majority of arguments, as is the case in this debate, then the voter may (and should) decide to flow through uncontested arguments to award argument points.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
In this case, Virtuoso gave two reasons to award conduct points: "I give conduct to Pro because Con violated the structure of the debate that is set forth in the description. I'm further giving Pro the conduct point because it is obvious that Con was not trying and didn't put in any effort to debate. This is proven by his last round which is literally 'nonsense.'"
PLEASE NOTE: Virtuoso identified and explained misconduct, but Virtuoso did not properly compare the conduct of the two debaters. Overall, though, this vote is of high enough quality to reach site standards.

- christopher_best, Vote Moderator

--> @Lazarous

Well said Lazarous! I had yet to find someone who explained the shortfalls of the theory of evolution in a chat like environment like this, but you have laid it out well (a unicorn in this online world). Though I think we both know it would be hard to have an in-depth conversation about it with most people now, as they hold this belief as a part of themselves, I think it does not hurt to put it out there.

To Truth!

--> @croweupc

The Copout Bias card: Bias is an evidence based conclusion, not an independent reason to discredit. croweupc statement is a two edged sward. If we examine the implications of atheistic evolution we find no accountability to a higher power. Doesn’t that sound nice? I would love to do what I want without any accountability. Do you really think that religious people want to be bound to rules of conduct and general decency? Your bias claim is agenda driven and commits suicide.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that:

• Evolution has no place in a Biblical perspective. The idea that evolution and the Bible fit together was derived from caving to peer pressure rather than it actually making sense. If God created the earth through millions of years of disease and death than how can that be ‘very good? Also, of what significance is man’s sin against God if death was already in play? The Bible states that through Adam’s sin death entered the world. The discrepancies are far two significant and numerous to comprehensively explore here.
• Many other religions do not hold to evolution. A religion would have to be quite deistic in nature to rationally holding to evolution since a ‘god guided’ process is not evolution.
• Since the existence of mass and energy is, quite obviously, required for evolution to take place it is quite relevant to the debate. If Con would like to develop his position further on the origin of mass and energy we may be able to dispense with this argument. However, the claims Con is likely to make to explain the origin of mass and energy will likely negatively affect the defensibility of the assumptions used in discussing the plausibility of abiogenesis and the development of the genome through mutations.
• Abiogenesis has been part of the theory of evolution from its first popularization of the theory through Darwin’s origins of species. After all Darwin did say, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” At the time the single cell was a black box to Darwin. Since then we have opened that black box and found how impossibly complex this irreducible mechanism really is. Indeed, the single cell “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.”
• All that being said, the perpetual decay of the genome is all that is required to discredit the entire theory of evolution. Evolution religiously clings to the idea that beneficial mutations that increase the genome occur and are retained at a high rate. Scientifically nothing could be further from the truth.

We are trying to determine if evolution is scientifically tenable. We are not debating if evolution is popular. Indeed, ridding yourself of all accountability is undeniably quite popular. Let’s question the motives behind the evolutionary model.


The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution are different. If you can prove the other two had to be supernatural, it would not change the facts about Evolution. There are many religious groups, including Christianity, that recognize the evidence for Evolution. The only people who argue against it are either uneducated in this field of study or their personal beliefs conflict with the evidence, so they choose to ignore it. Scientists from every continent, of every religious persuasion, in every single field of scientific studies, all agree that this Theory is evidentially true. The question should be asked, are any of these sources mentioned by pro not influenced by their religious convictions or unbiased in nature?