The Theory of evolution is a lie! We did not come from monkeys!
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 5/17/2008 | Category: | Science |
| Updated: | 6 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 327 times | Debate No: | 4074 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (14)
 Pro 1 debate per person please. I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad. How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes. Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence. So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you. Con Actually, I would only debate your first assertion, that your fellow humans with whom you do not feel you have a common understanding are in fact lying to you. As to your second assertion, I can reassure you, you do not come from monkeys. Even given your narrow understanding of your universe, channeled within a unilateral framework of time, it would be more accurate to say that you and monkeys come from the same grandmothers. And trust me, the monkeys are no more proud of having a common ancestor to you than are Africans or myself. But, as you have probably realized, we don't pick our kin. We are simply related. We are in the same bubble of the multiverse, our proximity is our kinship. This is true in any manner in which you may measure it, whether it be genetic or energetic. I won't burden you too greatly with things that you won't understand, but it is in fact a major project of my own to find a way to bridge between our bubble, and the bubble next door. I suspect there may be another God Almighty monodeity there, and I am very curious to know what happens when we touch. But let me visit your principal assertion, that the human scientists are lying to you. They are not lying, they are describing their formula for organizing the observable phenomena of the material human experience in a manner which is more comprehensible to the human mind. So it is truly irrelevant to try to frame the discussion in terms of truth or lie. If you look around you, you will see that everything is changing all of the time. You are different from your parents and your brothers and sisters. Dogs are different from wolves; and in fact you humans have isolated little eddies of energy, which you may describe as gene pools, to create breeds of domesticated dogs in as little as a hundred years. Even the earth itself is moving and changing constantly, the rocks around you are moving. Simply put, you are where you are in all of this. Some things are moving too fast for you to see, and some are moving too slowly. But if you believe that your perception is the definition absolute, then I must ask you: which one of us is God here, anyway? |
 |
|
Pro Con God_Almighty forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro everseeingeye forfeited this round.
Con God_Almighty forfeited this round. |
 |
Loading voting charts...
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
Explain some bacteria and viruses that you dont believe were "influenced" by other people or things.
I feel that the growth or spread of these things are influenced, several viruses have traveled simply by "hitching a ride."
Bacteria and viruses, are social in that the individual microorganisms "form colonies" with several others, thus socializing.
Can you disprove that current recognized viruses and bacteria were NEVER influenced by other life forms or enviornmental factors, artificiality of any kind?
Kangaroos and Deer? Pretty sure Deer are of the Cervidae niche, and Kangaroos are of the macropodidae niche.
I am 6 inches taller than my brother, He is terrified of heights, I rock climb. He has blonde hair, and I have black hair. We are literally from the same family, however we look nothing or behave nothing like eachother.
By your definition of LIFE you have proved the theory that bacteria and viruses are not of living.
The condition that seperates plants, animal,etc. from "IN-ORGANIC" matter.
So if bacteria "originates" in soil, water, etc. it can not be of organic matter, therefore being "seperate" from life such as animals, plants, etc.
Why would the height of mt.Ararat effect the size (depth)of the flood?
I believe Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else of faith or the unfaith in something other that an Almighty God, and his son Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. I believe they are wrong for the same BASIC princple you believe I am wrong. You simply believe in something else.
I know you gave me an example of how evolution might work.
My example showed that species without brains or social behaviour evolve too.
Thus social behaviour cannot be the sole mechanism for evolution.
It does not follow that creatures that evolve into the same niche look the same.
Kangaroos are in the same niche as deer for example. However, there must be some similarities. Just as the heads of kangaroos are similar to those of deer, high altitude cattle will have lungs better suited to the thinner atmosphere.
That Mt Ararat was higher in the past just makes the size of the flood more improbably large.
Why do you think the Hindus are wrong? (older religion)
Why do you think the Buddhists are wrong? (younger religion)
A definition:
LIFE: the condition that separates plants, animals etc from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
I'd say bacteria and viruses do all of those thing.
I know anitbiotics have no effect on viruses - I did say bacteria.
We are all brothers....bro. Don't be a di.ck.
Insanity: Derangement of the mind in regard of a single subject only; also, such a concentration of interest upon one particular subject or train of ideas to show mental derangement.
Also the common refrain; Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I would seek counseling.
(I am going to post these on every Evolution debate you have had...just so I make sure you see it. And maybe more than once so it will possibly sink in)
My theories/ beliefs are based on very reasonble and practical ideas.
Also, most high allitude cattle in fact do not at all look like the yak at all. Not that I really want to debate THAT issue with you.
The meaning and direction BEHIND the word of god is why the bible is and has been the MOST influential piece of literature in the world. Top annual selling book as well.
Mt Ararat was at the altitude of 17,011 feet, in 1977. In 30 years it has shrunk to what it is today at 16,854ft. Averaging a 5 ft. altitude loss per year. 5 ft. @ say 6,400 years, show the mountain could have possibly shrunk by 32,000 ft.
32,000 plus the current 16,854, puts the elevation of the mountain at roughly 48,854 ft. 6400 years ago.
Making it in fact the tallest mountain on the planet, even by todays standards.
Noahs ark was also said to be 450 feet in length, and took several decades to build. Only between 50-100 species of animals have been arguably linked to that area in that period, that were considered "native." Allowing for 4.6 feet of width space, if the animals were on a single level, between the larger animals, and Noahs family.
I do in fact believe that Hindus are wrong, and age of ones religion doesn't prove the accuracy or "correctness," If you are choosing to take that stance to justify "correctness," than you would have defeated yourself claiming scientific theories of the most recent times.
Viruses are social forms, and DO choose to exist in different places. But I wouldnt choose to use viruses as an example of life, as it is very seperate debate on the issue of viruses being even considered life forms, as they do not have cells like other life. Also Penicillin is an antibiotic not an antiviral, anitbiotics have no effect on viruses.
It says "all the world was flooded" - if this is the "Word of God" you can't argue translation errors.
It says the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat [16,854ft BTW] - you claim interpretation error?!
Sea levels have been higher than today, but nothing like the Bible says.
And you have no argument for how your religion can be true and all the others false, do you? Shiva is arguably the oldest god known. Why are you right and the Hindu's wrong?
Now for evolution.
Are microbes (virii, bacteria etc) deciding to live in different places?
Are viruses are not social life-forms. They don't have brains you know.
We see evolution of microbes all the time. The original Penicillin is no longer effective because most bacteria have evolved to be resistant. Same story with DDT and mosquitoes.
I suspect Yaks are actually domesticated cattle which were forced to try and live at higher altitudes by people.
If one were to force cattle to live up in the Rockies, some would die, and some survive. Eventually you would find the successful herd would be very yak-like.
Lastly; Blue-Green "goop"
It may seem crazy to you at first, but think of where you personally came from... also "goop". ;-)
Science isn't perfect - it's just the best tool for finding out the nature of nature there is.
again, HORRIBLE debate.