Who would like to debate me one on one?

I am looking for someone that would like to have a debate on the evidence of evolution. This will NOT be a Bible debate nor an Ad Hominem attack fest but a civil FACTS only debate on the theory of evolution as put forth by the big bang theory.

I am only looking to debate one person in this and I seek to tackle these parts of evolutionary theory:

- Cosmic evolution ( Big Bang - origin of matter)
- Chemical evolution (higher chemical)
- Planetary and stellar evolution (origin of the stars)
- Organic evolution (origin of life)
- Macro-evolution - animals changing into new kinds
- Micro-evolution (variation)

I would also like to tackle a few other evolutionary theories such as Vestigial Organs, who has used the theory in our known history and how, the Snopes Monkey trial and the verdict rendered in real life not reel life, Fossils and Strata, Know Scientific Laws, and the evolution of Evolution...

I would like to get the most knowledgeable person available on ATS that knows the Theory and can Scientifically back up their stance. To do this we must define Science in the advance and so here it is:

Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I look forward to a spirited and Scientific Debate with whomever you all decide is best for this task. Again only one on one and I would tell my opponent to ignore anyone but me as I will do the same. This is a debate between two not twenty two...

reply to post by theindependentjournal


In case I didn't make it clear in the first post I will be taking the Anti-evolution stance in this debate...

I cant debate this with you, I just stumbled onto a test a few months back(I will try to find for you!) I do not believe it proves evolution, but definately proves addaptation......
Fruit flys(forget species) life span is only like 2-4 hours......test was over a 1 year period....which came out to a great number of generations something like 1.7 million generations...
Anyways they put some in the dark, some in moister some in dry,bright light ect ect........
the ones in the dark(eyes got very big) and addapted to see almost without light
the ones in bright light(eyes almost non-existence)
Anyways you get the point, I am not for or against evolution....
But I will try to find a link to the test I saw to help your future debates.....

I'm probably not the man you're looking for, I don't have time to go looking for evidence/sources etc., but I will be very interested to see how you argue against the areas you mentioned in the OP, so I'll be checking back later.

Ill come for big bang and stellar evolution.

I am serious, I am ready to debate the big bang theory

[edit on Sun, Dec 14 2008 by peacejet]

reply to post by Doc Holiday


That may be fine, but maybe we should wait a bit and see if more people would like to step in. As it is I know the 40 year fruit fly experiment and they did change the fruit fly's wings and even got a wingless variety but they all were in the end varieties of fruit flies. This would be the final one which is Micro-Evolution, and quite frankly I will concede this one as it does happen and has been observed. That is to say changes within a Kind or Species, dogs are a good example of this you can cross breed many kinds of dogs but in the end you still have a dog, whether small or large or ugly or cute, as with the fruit flies it is still a dog.

This actually brings up a good point, maybe I should be finding individuals specialized in the different topics i posted and not one person on all of them as it may be unfair if one only knows a certain version of evolution...

Food for thought I guess, but nonetheless I will be conceding micro-evolution or Adaption within species as it is Scientific in that it is observable, proven and re creatable.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


its an honour to see you willingly debate in such a civilised and well mannered way.

i will not be participating in this debate, however i will certainly help to shut up the hecklers and one liners who are not here for an empirical debate.

again its an honour to witness this

well met

reply to post by peacejet


I want to let this post sit for at least a couple hours before accepting people, not because the first one that asks on a certain topic aint the best one for that topic, but I do want to allow a few others to put their two cents in on their topic and then you can decide amongst yourselves who would be best for which topic...

I would like to go in order if we can, and I have Peacejet down for Cosmic or Stellar or both and Doc on Micro so far...

Thanks for stepping up to the plate and wanting to do this to all who volunteer...

[edit on 12/14/2008 by theindependentjournal]

ok, great, and any specific topic you are interested in the cosmic/stellar

Edit: Is it the evolution of the universe as stated by big bang

[edit on Sun, Dec 14 2008 by peacejet]

ill debate the big bang theroy with you !!

let me start IT DIDNT GO BANG! lol

feel free to check out my cell theory thread

are we in something alive is the name of the thread



[edit on 14-12-2008 by theresult]

Considering your broad list of "Evolutionary steps" - it's apparent you really don't even understand the basic concept behind it. Your "list" is basically stolen directly from Kent Hovind's videos, and there's plenty of refutations regarding his fraudulent junk already. It's really not worth the rehash.

You're creating quite a tall order here by including so many particulars. Many proponents of evolution disagree with the idea of the big bang. There are sundry proposals of the origins of life in our universe, and no individual one is a necessary prerequisite for belief in the theory of evolution. Interestingly enough, some proponents of intelligent design actually agree with the idea of the big bang (don't ask me how that one works out). I would suggest focusing your argument to evolution as Darwin describes it--this will greatly expand your pool of potential debaters.

Id be happy to debate Cosmic evolution ( Big Bang - origin of matter) but i think that would be the only one id be willling to do

While we wait o people to get up and possibly want to get into parts of this debate I will put forth my first argument against Cosmic evolution ( Big Bang - origin of matter) so that it is out there for all to see and decide if they want to get into this debate with me...

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!

1 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe," Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology."—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

This will conclude my first point on Cosmic evolution ( Big Bang - origin of matter)

Since your creating this whole debate will you be applyin any rules like for example how many posts by a single member for the debate or a charachter limit or will it just be a no holds barred battle where the only rules are there are no rules

reply to post by theindependentjournal



And you state your ignorance of the theory of evolution by showing exactly what you want to debate. The last two of what you posted are the only two things the Theory of Evolution touches on. If that's what you want to debate, I'll be more than happy to PM semperfortis or memoryshock and I'll setup a thread in the debate forum, if you can keep your composure better then the thread you did about the first 8 presidents.

reply to post by Anti - Government


I want one person per section and I will not respond to the others that may jump in and would hope the same of my opponent. I want to keep it CIVIL and cite your sources when proper. I originally thought that I could debate one person on all points, but upon further thought this is probably not likely as already shown some are strong on one topic or another. So I will take this in Order listed and the Cosmic Evolution debate will be against one and only one that you all decide is best to tackle that portion...

I have posted my first position and await a decision on whom would like to tackle the Cosmic Evolution - (Big Bang Theory / Origin of Matter) and await that person's response...

I don't know how this will go but I hope it will go smoothly and others will read along but refrain from posting. If you have something maybe a U2U to that poster in regards to your point would suffice. I know we can not tell people not to post, but it is my hope that this can be done in a civil and decent way and let's let the chips fall where they may...

Edit - Since I don't believe none of us are physicists, archeologists, paleontologists, micro-biologists, chemical biologists, or any of the many other Sciences I would assume that those arguments put forth would be of the nature of the arguments of some Scientist or another. As I stated I just want this to be a Scientific debate for or against, without hyperbole speculation or unprovable theories. Nor do I want Biblical theory of Origin or Alien Theories put forth as they can not be accepted as Scientific by anyone. Let's follow the Known laws of Science and let's see where it goes... Thanks!

[edit on 12/14/2008 by theindependentjournal]

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Just read wikipedia. Clearly you'd learn a lot. All the sources are cited, all the evidence you want is there.

But you don't, because your mind is made up already. You don't want to learn - you've embraced ignorance and are quite happy with it.

Let me remind you what Aurelius Augustine - St. Augustine of Hippo - wrote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

But please - keep flogging this dead horse in the face of evidence. It's only hurting your position. Rational people see folks like you, chuckle, then walk away. They know you are not open to evidence - if you were, you'd not be saying this ridiculous stuff. The evidence for all that which you don't believe in is well-documented and everywhere, should you care to look.

One can't have a scientific debate with someone who doesn't understand science. Which you clearly don't.

Deny ignorance, please. You might learn something.

Jesus Christ take a breath!

You had several people debating you on numerous threads surrounding this! Let it go!

thats funny i called you out for a debate on ACTUAL evolution you spammed a few strawmen and ran off

i then pointed out every dishonest point in your post and then marveled at how somthing based purley on the theroy of evolution was 70% not evolution