CreateDebate


Debate Info

55
47
yes no
Debate Score:102
Arguments:93
Total Votes:110
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (48)
 
 no (43)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(28873) pic



Creatures trapped in amber refutes Darwinism. proves God


100-Million-Year-Old Spider Attack Found in Amber


So... a spider and wasp from hundreds of millions of years ago looks like... spiders and wasps of toay. So... spiders and wasps didn't change in hundreds of millions of years. Hmm... no Darwinism there.

yes

Side Score: 55
VS.

no

Side Score: 47
3 points

This definitely proves god and disproves evolution. You are right, every scientist is wrong.

Side: yes

1)Scientists provided the wasp and spider find.

2)Scientists claim it is hundreds of millions of years old.

3)Scientists say the Cmbrian (when life began on Earth) was 300 million years ago.

4)Scientists say it takes about 3 million years to get a metamorhpical change in a species.

5)300 million divided by 3 million is 100.

6)Scientists say it would take billions of intemediary metamorphical changes to go from simple organism to.human being.

7)100 transitions does not get you 1 billion changes to get from a sub creature to a human.

I added no opinion in this debate. I stated their claims and used basic math.

Side: yes
3 points

This is why debating Liberals is like deabting children. No matter what evidence you give to make their theory less believable, they simply change their reasoning on how evolution worked with spiders versus humans.

They say wellllllll, uhhhhhh, spiders were so perfectly evolved millions of years ago they did not evolve past their perfect stage, while humans evolved far beyond earlier humans.

But of course with humans, we see no similar types of primitive man living today as we see with spiders. I guess mankind needed to randomly mutate and evolve into our most complex DNA, and for some reason we have no other similar humans from millions of years ago.

Just like they tell us how a Cheeta evolved speed to catch their prey, but Leapords evolved stealth to catch their prey.

Lions evolved team work to catch their prey while wild dogs evolved stamina to catch their prey. I GET IT! IT'S AS CLEAR AS MUD!

Why did animals not just evolve the very best traits to catch prey and that would have been the most often evolved traits.

Now for some reason only Giraffes evolved long necks to reach those higher branches and survive but other animals did not need long necks to survive.

I GET IT! IT'S AS CLEAR AS COMMON CORE MATH!

GO FIGURE! Just ignore these things that make no sense and we will continue indoctrinating our children with only the Left's theories.

This is why evolution is not a science because it is based on no beginning, and theories that make no sense.

Their only come back is always the same, uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, duhhhhh, Christianity also has no proof of the beginning of God.

NEWS FLASH, WE DON'T TEACH CHRISTIANITY AS FACT IN SCIENCE CLASSES!

Side: yes
2 points

Just because they look the same doesnt mean they are the same. If a creature dominates its respective food chain and that food chain remains largely unchanged for a long time then theres not much of a driving force behind natural selection. If you cant do a job any better then theres nothing to drive change.

Side: no
1 point

"Both the spider and wasp species are today extinct. "

Side: no
1 point

Nope. I've seen wasps and spiders just like that today and so have you. They didn't change in hundreds of millions of years. Is your dogma being broken down Cartman, or are your confirmation biases kicking at full speed because of your childhood indoctrination? Has Atheism now become anti-science? You can call those former creatures whatever you want, but their children look exactly like that, and you know it's true. Your liberal, Atheist teachers, and possibly your parents, indoctrinated you towards Atheism.

Side: yes
herbert(102) Disputed
0 points

maybe u didnt forget to switch accounts but i can tell that its you brontorapter

Side: no
Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
0 points

You don't understand this concept of extinct.

They didn't change in hundreds of millions of years

That's not actually true.

your dogma being broken down Cartman, or are your confirmation biases kicking at full speed because of your childhood indoctrination?

You see what you want to see and I have the confirmation bias?

Has Atheism now become anti-science?

Your source said those 2 species aren't around today.

You can call those former creatures whatever you want, but their children look exactly like that, and you know it's true.

They don't though.

Your liberal, Atheist teachers, and possibly your parents, indoctrinated you towards Atheism.

YOUR OWN SOURCE SAID YOU WERE WRONG!

Side: no
1 point

Bwahahahahahahahaha! You're actually denying an atheist's wasp. Lmao

Side: yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
0 points

It is sad that you would laugh instead of learning to read.

Side: no
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

SouthPark speaks again-"Both the spider and wasp species are today extinct."

Okay SouthPark what spider and wasp species are today extinct. Share that information.

Side: yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
1 point

Still trolling to prove global warming?

Side: no
1 point

The time scale of millions of years already is counter to the creationism story in the Bible. Plus the persistence of the form of some living things is a compliment to how well they had evolved to survive in their nitch, not a rejection of the process of evolution itself.

Side: no
LichPotato(362) Disputed
2 points

"The time scale of millions of years already is counter to the creationism story in the Bible."

Only if you assume one "day" from God's perspective to be equal to one day from Man's perspective, a baseless assumption.

"Plus the persistence of the form of some living things is a compliment to how well they had evolved to survive in their nitch, not a rejection of the process of evolution itself."

According to Darwinian Evolution, any species that stagnated for 100 million years would find itself grossly outmatched by its competitors, assuming it could even exist that way for so long. Even if it managed to do so, the only way that could come about would be by that species dominating its ecosystem, which it hasn't.

Side: yes
seanB(748) Disputed
1 point

Only if you assume one "day" from God's perspective to be equal to one day from Man's perspective, a baseless assumption.

God is a fiction, and a day is a day. A day is a day because we know a day is a day: we have proof. What we do not have proof of, is any instance where a day cannot be a day. Nor do we have proof of a God. So as far as "baseless assumptions" go, yours ranks up there with the worst of them.

According to Darwinian Evolution, any species that stagnated for 100 million years would find itself grossly outmatched by its competitors

This isn't necessarily true. To generalize so broadly shows you have no idea what you're saying. At any rate, even if it were true, it would validate evolutionary selection, not disprove it.

assuming it could even exist that way for so long. Even if it managed to do so, the only way that could come about would be by that species dominating its ecosystem, which it hasn't.

Clearly it has found an evolutionary niche, and clearly it fits into its ecosystem. There's no part of evolutionary theory that says for a species to thrive it has to "dominate its ecosystem". It only has to be good at living within its ecosystem. Giraffes don't "dominate their ecosystem", yet here they are.

More importantly though: you believe in fairy tales and have a very warped concept of reality, as well as practically no understanding of evolutionary theory, which makes you about as authoritative on this topic as a platypus is on seventeenth century French architecture.

Side: no
1 point

Not actually. They are finding blood vessels in "dinosaur bones" which killed the "millions of years" theory.

Nevertheless, Adam only means "mankind" in Hebrew. The story is an alegory, and his son Cain found a wife in Nod, which kills your claim either way. Nice try though. And 6,000 years is never mentioned in the Bible. You've just created a strawman. The reference section is your friend, and the atheist apologetics sites are the enemy of truth and free thought. Trust me. I figured this out as an Atheist. I've seen them all. They lie, quote mine, and take out context on purpose. Study the Bible for yourself, and you'll reaize you've given into Atheist fundamentalist dogma.

Side: yes
1 point

As you can guess, I'm not going to bother with the link. The title of the debate is flawed. Even if evolution by natural selection was shown to be completely false, that doesn't get you any closer to proving God. "not A doesn't mean it must be B"

Side: no
1 point

Aaaahhh. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. The Atheism of the Gaps is a logical fallacy. See how that crap works? You are barking up the wrong tree. Don't try to face an ex-atheist with the stupid atheist apologetics. Those of us who actually study know it's all crap. Don't sell me a pinto as if it's a lamborgini. I'll push your bs car out of my yard and slam the door in your face every time. Your clan needs some facts. The old crap doesn't work anymore. People can smell a lie like a dead fish. The burden of proof is on you to prove the magical nothing that manifested everything exists. So go ahead. Show it to us, otherwise you are lying and are a full fledged faithful fundamentalist. We'll wait. This should be good.

Side: yes
sylynn(626) Disputed
2 points

You can puff yourself up as much as you want, we all know once you get stumped you just disappear from the argument. Atheism of the gaps doesn't make any sense. "We don't know, therefore atheism?" When has that ever happened?

Side: no
1 point

So... you are applying the tactic called Atheism of the gaps. If you cannot prove something or if you have a gap? Atheism.

Side: yes
sylynn(626) Disputed
1 point

Really, trying that on again? Didn't work so well for you the first time. If I don't know something, that just means I don't know something. You should really be embarrassed by your arguments.

Side: no
1 point

Really doesn't mean it proves god. And you give no explaination on how it refutes darwinism

Side: no
1 point

Nope. This is what proves God. Atheists are afraid to even take a peek. That's how dogmatic they are.

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

Side: yes
1 point

Oh right --------- Two bugs get entombed in tree sap, a hundred million years ago and OMG 😱, they look like bugs, so of course there is a magic guy in the sky. NOT

Side: no
1 point

They aren't bugs. That's a wasp that looks like a wasp of today. The point? Not that it proves "there's a man in the sky", but that it, the Cambrian explosion, and lack of intermediaries, kills Darwinian theory, which is the core concept that causes Atheists to even be Atheists in the first place, according to polling.

Side: yes
1 point
Side: yes
-1 points

fnord .. .. lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum

Side: no