frame

Evolution?

Opening Argument

The evidence for evolution is literally so rife and paints a more rational picture of our origin than god. Fossils like tiktalik and archaeopteryx and taung child fossil and lucy and neanderthal fossil, pseudogenes like w3nta which gives us tails, atavisms like the lizard snake or the ape human , homologies we have similar morphologies to apes and bats, humans, cats and whales all have the same bone structure but different function in the hand except longer and thicker or smaller and narrower bones but the same structure or layout proving we are all connected by a common ancestors , comparative embroyology proves we all have a common ancestor, comparative DNA like being 98% similar with apes and vestigial features like the human coccyx, wisdom teeth and the harmful appendix. This is a brief list and does not include other lines of evidence like biogeography. 

If you deny evolution, why do you deby it despite all the evidence?

If you accept evolution, how do you fit the fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes over millions of years with the story that the first guy was created from mud in heaven in one day and that the first woman was created from his rib on the same day before apes and other animals were created.
joecavalrypassedbilldropoutErfisflatrandalaarongmelanielustnatbaronsmelefEvidenceand 2 others.
«13456789

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • I believe in god and evolution.

    Scientits have discovered fossils which theoretically prove evolution exists. These fossils come from different times, but the same species. They depict the species evolving through time. I also believe that god had made everything including these fossils. If I were put on the spot, I would have to say I believe in Adam and Eve more than the theory of evolution do to faith and overall evidence.
    passedbilluzairmahmud
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • I believe in Adam and Eve. It seems to have the most evidence of occurring and is in line with my faith.
  • Arguments like these are tricky because it almost solely depends on whether or not you are religious. If you are religious you are far more likely to believe in creation, and very little can be done to convince someone otherwise. If you aren't religious, and believe in evolution, it is much the same story.
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 198 Pts
    edited June 12
    @melanielust I might be able to be persuaded if your arguments for Creation are good enough (which would be challenging, since evidence for a God, let alone Creation, is lacking). Also, is there evidence that Adam and Eve existed, let alone made from mud and someone's ribs?
    dropoutmelanielustsensessions
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    There is no more practical evidence for evolution than there is for God. Appeals to authority/popular consensus. Even in a lab, with some of the so called smartest guys on the planet have never produced macroevolution results. This is with help. There are literally thousands of transitional skeletons missing between ape and man. 
    melanielustEvidenceWolfgang666
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat That picture has no information, really. It just assumes it's correct in saying "Earth is flat". We had a Flat Earther in debate.org as well, though he never used pictures like that, and used actual evidence to support his conclusion.
    m_abusteit
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    @Erfisflat That picture has no information, really. It just assumes it's correct in saying "Earth is flat". We had a Flat Earther in debate.org as well, though he never used pictures like that, and used actual evidence to support his conclusion.
    I think he did use pictures, in our debate, I showed you how Disney made most of the images of earth and pluto, mercury, etc. You know, the number one reason I get for people believing the earth is a spinning ball is "pictures from space"? Have you read the debate here called the earth is flat?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    edited June 12
    I spent two years on that forum topic "ask a flat earther" I've only been here a few weeks bruh. @PowerPikachu21
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    edited June 12
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • randalrandal 60 Pts
    @Erfisflat , please tone down your arguments. I agree, Earth is indeed flat. The theories that Scientitst are proposing can't be accurate. Also, how would there be hovering water? 
    melanielustm_abusteitErfisflatWolfgang666
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    @randal
    How exactly should I "tone down" my arguments? I haven't insulted anyone. I'm glad you've figured out the shape of the earth. What is hovering water though? 
    FlashPoint
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @PowerPikachu21
    I get what you're saying. I don't believe in creation, never have. Sometimes I play devil's advocate so often that people don't know what my opinion really is
  • For the people claiming that there isway more evidence for adam and eve than evolution, where is the evidence? I can make as many claims as I want. They all fail without evidence.

    For those who claim that i am appealing to authority, please elaborate on how i am doing so? I provided you with fossils you can look up for yourself. For the pseudogenes and vestigials, you can look up the examples i provided and they will be confirmed from multiple different sources. 

    For this one flat earther in this thread, do you actually beleive the earth is flat? Lol. Ok how do you explain, ships seeming to sink the horizon, how do you explain day and night. If the earth is flat shouldnt the light hit all of it at once? How do you explain that during a lunar eclipse, the shadow that is casted on the moon is round? If the earth is flat shouldnt it be a horizontal line casted on the moon?  How do you explain the countless images of the round earth taken by NASA, ISS and russian space agencies.

    FlashPoint
  • For the flat earther, where in the bible does it say the world is flat?
    sensessionsmelanielust
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    For the people claiming that there isway more evidence for adam and eve than evolution, where is the evidence? I can make as many claims as I want. They all fail without evidence.

    For those who claim that i am appealing to authority, please elaborate on how i am doing so? I provided you with fossils you can look up for yourself. For the pseudogenes and vestigials, you can look up the examples i provided and they will be confirmed from multiple different sources. 

    For this one flat earther in this thread, do you actually beleive the earth is flat? Lol. Ok how do you explain, ships seeming to sink the horizon, how do you explain day and night. If the earth is flat shouldnt the light hit all of it at once? How do you explain that during a lunar eclipse, the shadow that is casted on the moon is round? If the earth is flat shouldnt it be a horizontal line casted on the moon?  How do you explain the countless images of the round earth taken by NASA, ISS and russian space agencies.

    All refuted here.
    http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4941#Comment_4941
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    edited June 13
    @m_abusteit
    Oh and for future references, please tag the user you are speaking to with @ to avoid talking to yourself. It helps conversations to flow. As far as evolution, one line of question. 

    When the first living thing developed a sex organ, how did it procreate? Was the male genitalia creature, which is supposed to be a mutation, coupled by a nearby female genitalia bearing creature? Since this type of mutation has never been observed, do you still consider this science? Or will you admit the entire theory of evolution is pseudoscience? 

    sensessions
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @erfislfat , before I began my argument I would like to mention that I respect and understand your arguments.

    I begin my argument by saying that Evolution is in fact true.

    The process of evolution is at this time almost scientifically proven with over whelming evidence including physical evidence such as fossils of animals throughout time depicting the process of evolution which is the core of the evolving human and animal race.

    I am a believer in my religion and the process of humans and also animal evolution. The factors may not have to mix.

    @Erfisflat , I am ending my argument by restating my opinion of evolution being almost fully scientifically proven and also accurate. 
    aarong
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    @erfislfat , before I began my argument I would like to mention that I respect and understand your arguments.

    I begin my argument by saying that Evolution is in fact true.

    The process of evolution is at this time almost scientifically proven with over whelming evidence including physical evidence such as fossils of animals throughout time depicting the process of evolution which is the core of the evolving human and animal race.

    I am a believer in my religion and the process of humans and also animal evolution. The factors may not have to mix.

    @Erfisflat , I am ending my argument by restating my opinion of evolution being almost fully scientifically proven and also accurate. 
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but falsely stating that evolution is a fact does not make it so.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat   the first living thing was unicellular not multicellular. I assume you dont know much about science since you advocate for a flat earth. Unicellular organisms reproduce by mitosis or doubling and splitting themselves. The first male genitilia and female gentilia were either a mutation or just specialization of cells. The first thing did not procreate with itself. It just doubled its genetic material then divided it to create another organisms. When they formed colonies or the first simple multicellular organisms, they began to specialize into different genitilia. Although some continued asexual reproduction. Vertebrates evolved from invertebrates and we see that invertebrates to this day can repriduce asexually.

    Are you a troll?

    How can you call evolution pseudoscience with all the evidence there is for it? 

    You literally believe the earth is flat despite all the photos there are. You are in denial you just want to believe. Really dude? Flat earth despite all the photos and you have enough courage to call evolution pseudo science yet believe in a flat earth?

    The fossils dont prove we came from dirt. They prove we came from a common unicellular ancestor with all other life on earth. That unicellular eukaryote evolved into simple multicellular life forms then jawless fish then fish then amphibians then reptiles then mammals then eventually primates and humans. You are the one who believes we are made from dirt or mud or ribs or whatever god uses. 

    You still have not shown me what is the evidence for a flat earth nor where it says so in the bible.

    You still have to disprove the evidence for evolution and show me evidence for creationsim.

    melanielust
  • @Erfisflat your link redirected me to an earlier  post by you where you say you dont like the round earth "theory" and you stating you are not satisfied with scientism. In fact the only argument you make for your case is that the horizon is flat. Thats because the spherical earth is very massive compared to tiny humans. Imagine an ant on an 8 ball for pool then imagine an ant on the surface of the unisphere, the horizon will look flat due to the sheer size of the unisphere compared to the ants. You still need to refute the evidence for the round earth and provide where it says the earyb is flat in the bible.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    @Erfisflat   the first living thing was unicellular not multicellular. I assume you dont know much about science since you advocate for a flat earth. Unicellular organisms reproduce by mitosis or doubling and splitting themselves. The first male genitilia and female gentilia were either a mutation or just specialization of cells. The first thing did not procreate with itself. It just doubled its genetic material then divided it to create another organisms. When they formed colonies or the first simple multicellular organisms, they began to specialize into different genitilia. Although some continued asexual reproduction. Vertebrates evolved from invertebrates and we see that invertebrates to this day can repriduce asexually.

    Are you a troll?

    How can you call evolution pseudoscience with all the evidence there is for it? 

    You literally believe the earth is flat despite all the photos there are. You are in denial you just want to believe. Really dude? Flat earth despite all the photos and you have enough courage to call evolution pseudo science yet believe in a flat earth?

    The fossils dont prove we came from dirt. They prove we came from a common unicellular ancestor with all other life on earth. That unicellular eukaryote evolved into simple multicellular life forms then jawless fish then fish then amphibians then reptiles then mammals then eventually primates and humans. You are the one who believes we are made from dirt or mud or ribs or whatever god uses. 

    You still have not shown me what is the evidence for a flat earth nor where it says so in the bible.

    You still have to disprove the evidence for evolution and show me evidence for creationsim.

    Maybe you misunderstand my question. When the first male genitalia "evolved", and that organism couldn't asexually reproduce,  did the first female genitalia simultaneously evolve, so those organs could be passed down? Since those early life forms probably had a very short life span, it's illogical to say this magical series of events happened. And, yes, (macro)evolution is by definition pseudoscience, since it has never ever been experimentally proved. 

    " Really dude? Flat earth despite all the photos and you have enough courage to call evolution pseudo science yet believe in a flat earth?"

    Yes, water is always been experimentally proved to rest with a flat surface. The proof is there. But you'd accept a image (there are no actual photos of earth as a ball) as evidence?  Here you go, thisimage of God should disprove evolution. 

    Furthermore,you haven't read the debate, if you had, you wouldn't be calling images scientific proof.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat

    "Evolution of genitilia"

    Your question makes no sense. Sexual reproduction is not a neccessity of life that had to happen. We could have lived without sexual reproduction and lived off asexual reproduction alone. Its a mutation that evolved and survived. You are thinking about it all wrong. However, scientific peer reviewed magazines like Nature and Scientific American have found lots of evidence that genitilia evolved by a mutation in hox genes that survived because of sexual selection and was caused by an environemntal pressure. Sexual reproduction began without sexually distinct organs. Evidence suggests gendered organs probably began as organs in the same individual (as in many plants), then the capacity evolved in some species for individuals to become gender diversified by their environment (as in many reptiles, some developing male organs, some female), and then finally these gender differences became locked into DNA as a chromosome mutation. 



    "Water on a surface"

    Unless the earth has gravity. There is dust on the moon. Why doesnt it fall off? Gravity.

    "Macroevolution"

    Macroevolution is when two distinct slecies are created. Ever heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria, E. Colu long term evolution experment, peppered moth experiment and the fruit fly experiment? There are many more those are the ones off the top of my head. But in each of those experiments, a differnet species was created/evolved that could not reproduce with the original species.

    "Images"

    Photographic evidence includes videos such as he first video by armstrong on the moon of earth and the earth was spherical. There are also photos from MULTIPLE agencies proving the earth is sphere. Why would they all be lying?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 831 Pts
    @Erfisflat

    "Evolution of genitilia"

    Your question makes no sense. Sexual reproduction is not a neccessity of life that had to happen. We could have lived without sexual reproduction and lived off asexual reproduction alone. Its a mutation that evolved and survived. You are thinking about it all wrong. However, scientific peer reviewed magazines like Nature and Scientific American have found lots of evidence that genitilia evolved by a mutation in hox genes that survived because of sexual selection and was caused by an environemntal pressure. Sexual reproduction began without sexually distinct organs. Evidence suggests gendered organs probably began as organs in the same individual (as in many plants), then the capacity evolved in some species for individuals to become gender diversified by their environment (as in many reptiles, some developing male organs, some female), and then finally these gender differences became locked into DNA as a chromosome mutation. 



    "Water on a surface"

    Unless the earth has gravity. There is dust on the moon. Why doesnt it fall off? Gravity.

    "Macroevolution"

    Macroevolution is when two distinct slecies are created. Ever heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria, E. Colu long term evolution experment, peppered moth experiment and the fruit fly experiment? There are many more those are the ones off the top of my head. But in each of those experiments, a differnet species was created/evolved that could not reproduce with the original species.

    "Images"

    Photographic evidence includes videos such as he first video by armstrong on the moon of earth and the earth was spherical. There are also photos from MULTIPLE agencies proving the earth is sphere. Why would they all be lying?
    post an image
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch