CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:13
Arguments:38
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 People who are adamantly anti-evolution have no understanding of it. (13)

Debate Creator

HarryPits(301) pic



People who are adamantly anti-evolution have no understanding of it.

Ignorance itself isn't a bad thing.  What's bad is ignorance by choice.

 

Whenever people dispute the legitimacy of the Theory of Evolution, they demonstrate a severe misunderstandin often comparing it to Pokemon (which is actually a metamorphosis) or implying that a parent species always disappears.

 

Do you admit to not understanding evolution?  Do you admit to not wanting to understand evolution?  Do you admit to not wanting to understand evolution and still deny it due to a lack of understanding?  Would you be willing to become enlightened in the ways of evolution?

Join the evolution cult today and get limited edition Darwin themed cult robe!  Llame ahora!

Add New Argument

!! I'll join! I've always wanted to join a cult! For the experience! :D

Intangible(4934) Clarified
1 point

And i think cult robes are badass

Nuff said

Can you give me a documented kind to kind evolution?

HarryPits(301) Clarified
1 point

Here's the Pokemon example at work. Would you like me to explain why it's not something that gets 'documented' in a life time?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I'm not talking now, I mean fossil record proof of kind to kind evolution.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I realize how evolution works. The concurrent generations are the same species. Its the the great x 100 grandfather that's not the same species. I know how it works.

1 point

Can you give me a documented kind to kind evolution?

Ladies and gentlemen, Ray Comfort!

You mean like a crocofish, or would you prefer a whale with legs?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

These fossils are more like creationists when they claim they have found fossils that claim to show that man and disnasour lived together but in reality little evidence is shown in the first place. And when it is shown it is hilighted in a way to hide the fact that the "man" footprints are eroded dinasour footprints. Like these, the crocofish has way more evidence than the whale with legs. The "push and nudge" technique is computer graphics with the original fossils rarely to never shown. The crocfish has more evidence but their are debates if it really is a fish-croc or a different species of crocodile.

sauh(1106) Disputed
1 point

You mean like a crocofish, or would you prefer a whale with legs?

Now you are missing the point and just being ridiculous.

First off a crocofish would be autocanniblistic, crocodiles love eating fish.

And finally a whale with legs would blow out its knees in like three weeks, whales are super heavy.

1 point

Absolutely - right after you specifically define 'kind'.

If 'kinds' are so distinct it should be quite easy for you to name them, and there should be no fossil evidence between one 'kind' and another, correct? So, can you name the 'kinds' to which you are referring?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

The animal classification "kind".

Show proof of prehistoric primates and cavemen.

I want to see fossils lined up next to each other in the supposed evolutionary pattern.

I agree - but you need to understand that most people who claim to be anti-evolution are mostly against Darwin's and Dawkin's theories of evolution, not so much evolution in general.

I realize some might be anti-evolution, but in my mind that is like being anti-gravity or something.

I believe we are evolving, I believe everything evolves - I just don't believe we came from monkeys.

But true - people who are against don't understand it.

HarryPits(301) Clarified
1 point

I do accept where you're coming from, but the Theory of Evolution does not say that we came from monkeys. According to how evolution works, we would not have come from monkeys, but we would have a common ancestor. It's like how if you share some features with your siblings, it doesn't mean they're the ones whose vadginas you squeezed out of.

shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
1 point

I know that, but I don't consider that as a fact like many scientists do. I believe we evolve, I just don't believe we evolved from a monkey or any other being that resembles a monkey.

Like you say, we have many things in common with the monkey - but we have many things in common with a bunch of other species too.

Human beings share 95% of their DNA with mice, and 89% with zebrafish.

Plus - monkeys do not react on the HIV bacteria, they all have it without actually getting ill from it - don't you think this kind of contradicts the theory that we evolved from monkeys? Why would the human specie evolve from being tolerant to intolerant to a certain bacteria? That goes against evolution.

1 point

People who are adamantly anti-evolution have not gotten the chance to evolve themselves.

HarryPits(301) Clarified
1 point

That could be true, since evolution is slower and works differently in humans.

But I should say that anti-evolutionists aren't going to become evolutionists through the metamorphosis called evolution in Pokemon.

1 point

It's likely that some people could refute evolution because it's difficult to see the effects in one lifetime (or a more reasonable time frame). It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they don't see it. The solution to this is to show them microevolution in a laboratory setting. Pressure a colony of microbes to evolve! If the environment they're in changes quickly and at least some survive, evolution will take place!