Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
10
debates
35.0%
won
Topic
#3959
Evolution Is Wrong
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1709
rating
565
debates
68.23%
won
Description
Evolutionism is flawed
Round 1
Pro
#1
Evolution is the belief that over the course of billions of years, our Earth and solar system and, honestly, the entire universe was created.
1) Evolutionists state that the universe was created by an explosion that slowly pieced itself together into the most intricate creations we know of. From the creation of the perfectly placed position of our planet to the design of the human body. The chance of this happening by happy accident is astronomical. It is like throwing a dart from outerspace onto the face of the earth and landing bulls-eye on a dart board. Also, there is a scientific law that states: "Energy can neither be destroyed neither created--only converted from one form to another." This is the Law of Conservation of Energy. How then, can the universe be created from nothing? It would require already present energy to start with, and there was none. It is not scientific at all to state that something came from nothing. The "Big Bang Theory"--an explosion of... nothing?
One might argue that there was in fact content available at the time. It was in the form of "primordial star dust." I ask, "Where did this primordial star dust come from?" Has it always been around? How is that possible since "everything moves towards destruction"? - Second Law of Thermodynamics (paraphrased). This is another reason our universe could not have been created like this. The creation of our world and everything could not have happened if everything is moving towards ruin. That's like destroying a LEGO Set and presupposing it will connect itself into its intricately designed form. Another example would be blowing up a junk yard of cars and expecting all of the vehicles to build themselves back to their factory-released structure. And, how can something build/create itself? What does that even mean? When items are left alone, they move towards chaos, not order.
2) Evolutionists state that humans have evolved from ancestors in a process that took an extremely long time. In this period, humans have started out as bacteria and progressed into many different creatures before settling into our most recent form. I say "settling," but some believe we are still evolving. Moving on, a big evidence that evolutionists strive to discover is an "in-between" species. A fossil that was transitioning from one form into the other. However, there is still yet for one to be found. There have been no fossils found in a transitioning phase. There are certainly claims to the discovery of one, but they are false. Micro-evolution DOES take place. This is observable in the variations among humans with different skin pigmentation of hair color that correlates with the geography of their current habitat. Such as people groups with darker skin and hair living in generally hotter locations.
Your turn, RationalMadman
Con
#2
Evolution is the belief that over the course of billions of years, our Earth and solar system and, honestly, the entire universe was created.
Not quite. Genuinely listen to me on this:
A creationist origin to the reality we know can coincide with biological evolution.
An atheistic origin to the reality we know can coincide with lack of evolution.
If you fully understand both of those sentences, you will see where you've lumped in something that needn't be defended or attacked here.
In Round 2, I would like you to clearly define biological evolution.
I want you also to reply to the following things:
2) Evolutionists state that humans have evolved from ancestors in a process that took an extremely long time. In this period, humans have started out as bacteria and progressed into many different creatures before settling into our most recent form. I say "settling," but some believe we are still evolving. Moving on, a big evidence that evolutionists strive to discover is an "in-between" species. A fossil that was transitioning from one form into the other. However, there is still yet for one to be found. There have been no fossils found in a transitioning phase. There are certainly claims to the discovery of one, but they are false. Micro-evolution DOES take place. This is observable in the variations among humans with different skin pigmentation of hair color that correlates with the geography of their current habitat. Such as people groups with darker skin and hair living in generally hotter locations.
Do you agree or disagree with the following ideas:
- Offspring inherit their DNA from the parents.
- Out of a group of potential parents, those most suited to the environment, ecosystem and social game associated with reproduction will generally speaking, spread their genes more successfully than those that are less suited.
- If we combine 1 and 2, if you agreed to them, it follows that not only the parents but the grandparents have an effect.
- Assuming you agree that sometimes freak cases occur, if the freak case is much more suited to its environment for having a weirdly shaped mouth, limb, eye etc, it will based on points 1, 2 and 3, end up influencing an offshoot.
I want to establish your agreement or disagreement to those 4 points. From there, we can have an actual debate.
Round 2
Con
#4
Based on Rounds left and character count, I stand by needing my Round1 replied to first before pushing forth a constructive case.
This plan will alter next Round if my opponent ignores the questions again.
Round 3
Con
#6
The fact mixed race children form a new race itself is alone a form of proof of evolution happening.
The average human height has shifted taller over time, what my opponent says in Round 1 disproves nothing.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Macro-evolution
If Con did not know or understand that this debate was meant to be over Macro Evolution, this is my fault. That is what I intended for us to debate.
Do you agree or disagree with the following ideas:
- Offspring inherit their DNA from the parents.
- Out of a group of potential parents, those most suited to the environment, ecosystem and social game associated with reproduction will generally speaking, spread their genes more successfully than those that are less suited.
- If we combine 1 and 2, if you agreed to them, it follows that not only the parents but the grandparents have an effect.
- Assuming you agree that sometimes freak cases occur, if the freak case is much more suited to its environment for having a weirdly shaped mouth, limb, eye etc, it will based on points 1, 2 and 3, end up influencing an offshoot.
Yes, I agree with these. None of these are proofs of Macro Evolution in themselves, but they will probably be utilized as such in some way in Con's defense.
Micro Evolution
The fact mixed race children form a new race itself is alone a form of proof of evolution happening.
That would be Micro Evolution. Again, I was not meaning to argue over this type of evolution. Con's example shows changes happening within a species and results in the same species with altered characteristics over time. Not major changes or a new species/kind mind you.
The average human height has shifted taller over time
Increased quality of food consumption plays a part in the growing average of human height.
Definitions
In Round 2, I would like you to clearly define biological evolution.
Evolution -
1 : "descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
1 : "descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations"
In opposition of this definition, there is no true evidence for this understanding of evolution to be taking place or have taken place.
Sources:
1 Evolution - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
Round 5
Con
#10
If you evolve breeds enough, they end up so different to other breeds they have become a species with the middle ones extinct.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro conceded most of the debate by forfeiting and listed no sources to prove Evolution is wrong and only provided the definition of Evolution which does not prove anything in the debate. While Con could have made better arguments they not only forfeited less but correctly pointed out that Pro's stance on evolution was unclear despite believing it to be wrong.
Both Pro and Con should learn to make better arguments that preferably have sources.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
40% forfeit. "by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Apologies for the forfeits
1. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
2. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology or physics.
Don’t get your arguments from creationists like Joshua Feuerstein.