Instigator / Pro
7
1411
rating
11
debates
13.64%
won
Topic
#1555

Evolution is a fact.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Barney

I'll try to vote on it today or tomorrow, depending on when I have time.

-->
@zedvictor4
@crossed
@sigmaphil
@Dynasty
@SirAnonymous

The debate which came from the comment section here (see comments #8-10, and #13-14) has finished:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to cross

>Reason for Decision:

Crossed, well done! You have clear and concise points, and they were well organized. Keep it up! As for you Dynasty, I've brought some advice:
a) Don't waste your time arguing with your opponents sources, argue with his contentions directly
b) Next time, please at least try...

Reason for Mod Action> This vote fails to explain sources, conduct or spelling and grammar criteria and is thus insufficient.

For the arguments portion, as a voter you must survey the main arguments and counter arguments both sides make and provide a rational of why one was better than another in order to reach a decision. This point is thus insufficient too.

While the voting criteria may seem a bit harsh; the purpose is to allow debaters to have a better understanding of why one side one won over another and to allow; as well as to dissuade grudge voters and those that vote with their bias. This is not to say your view of who won is incorrect, or to accuse your of grudge voting; however in the interests of transparency we often need to see information about how this vote was arrived at for it to count. There is more information on the detailed voting policy covered in the CoC.

*******************************************************************

-->
@DynamicSquid

I will try again next time.

-->
@crossed

Does african have fire breathing lizards? And Asian dragons look nothing like western dragons. More like sea serpents then dinosaurs.

We have cave paintings of deer and bison. If there were dinosaurs around, wouldnt those be the primary subject of interest? Not bison?

The cambiran explosion took 10s or 100s of millions of years. That is very fast geologically speaking, but still a long time.

Also, to your dinosaur/birds argument. Dinosaurs existed for a long time. The Trex lived closer to us then it did to the stegosaurus. Plenty of time for birds to evolve and then be eaten. Just like dogs evolved from wolves, but wolves can still eat dogs.

This reminds me of the silly "why are there still monkeys" evolution complaint. Just because a group evolved doesnt mean every memeber of the previous group went extinct, or didnt have its own evolutionary path. Thats why we have more then 1 type of monkey, ape, feline, etc.

-->
@Dynasty

Evolutionist say fossil is evidence certain animal lived something millions of years.They say dino lived 360 millions of years ago.THis can not be because dinosaurs existed when human existed.Because there is a record of them by ancient people.They drew picture of dinosaurs and stuff.Plus every culture has records of a giant lizard that breaths fire.

-->
@AKmath

so from what i read the Cambrian explosion is when a bunch of fossil just randomly appeared and did not take millions of years.

"The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains"
https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php

If this tells you anything fossil do not take millions or billions of years to form.But can happen in a month or a couple of days via water.The only fossil that are appearing today are fish they fossilize in a couple of day's because of water

"First note that very few fossils are forming today and then only in the case of rapid burial by water. For instance what happens to a fish when it dies?"
https://www.icr.org/article/are-fossils-result-noahs-flood

Lab was able to make fossil fossilize in 24 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpMbCQlIrDs

If the camberian explosion is around the same time.Evolutionist believe the entire planet was covered in water.It would mean that that Noah flood caused these fossil to fossilized.

Note i know very little on Cambrian explosion

-->
@crossed

"This is false because they lived during the same time."
Would that be question begging?

So how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

-->
@Dynasty

I want to clear up some thing.

Your saying fossil evidence prove evolution.So i went to dinosaurs fossil to prove this false.Fossil record of dinosaurs put dinosaurs 360 million years ago.I am saying the fossil evidence is wrong since these picture prove dinosaur walked around when humans were around And according to science humans have only been a thing for 200 thousand years. So either there human fossil line is wrong or there dinosur fossil line is wrong. Or there fossil age numbers is wrong.

it is not true that dinosaurs walked 360 million years ago. Since they were alive when humans were alive.

These picture prove dinosaurs existed when humans were a thing. Which mean there human fossil evidence is wrong and there dinosaur fossil evidence is wrong
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10VKWeUe4kB9k2gxTo_po4OsxLQ5kbLHlBfbUxz7n9bA/edit

-->
@zedvictor4

Fact: something that is known to be true.

Theory (as used in science): an tested explanation of a natural occurrence.

Evolution is a fact
The theory of evolution explains that fact

Lets look at evolution. It is made of only 2 parts, mutations, and natural selection.
1. Mutations. A fact. We know them to exist. We have seen them first hand. We understand how they work.
2. Natural selection. A fact. If you cant survive and make babies, you die out.
1+2=evolution.

-->
@Nemiroff

1) The fact is. Your definition of a fact is factually incorrect.....Look it up.

2) A process that may be logically applied, may not necessarily result in a logical conclusion.

3) Theorem.

-->
@zedvictor4

The only word play i see is "logically you can make arguments but they arent neccesarily logical arguments". That sounds like nonsense. If you make an argument logically, you make logical arguments.

A fact is a single sentence: germs spread disease. Thats it.
A theory can fill multiple books. How disease is spread, how germs cause injury, how the body combats the germs, how to break the chain of infection, etc. All of this can fill numerous textbooks and the details are always subject to change with new data. That is a theory.

A theory does not become a fact, a theory describes a fact. They exist together.

-->
@Nemiroff

Word play!

Logically you can make arguments.

But you cannot necessarily make logical arguments.

There are definitely no logical arguments left for a flat stationary Earth. All that is left are obstinate word players who are patently aware of the truth.

And:
What was once a theory may well now be a fact and so, what was once the theory has become the definition and is therefore no longer the theory.

-->
@sigmaphil

Please look up the definition of scientific theory.

There is a difference between theory and fact. Do you think that germs cause infection disease is a fact? Of course it is. To describe this fact we developed the germ *theory* of disease. The same way the *theory* of relativity describes the fact of gravity. Many parts of the theory of evolution are up for debate, with new discoveries fleshing out more details. But the fact that evolution happens is a fact. The theory describes and explains the fact.

-->
@Nemiroff

Evolution may have some scientific fact to support it, but it's still a theory and a theory is not conclusively factual.

-->
@zedvictor4

Thinking logically can be dangerous. Logically i can make arguments for a flat stationary earth. Logic can lead to many different, even contradictory answers. Which is why science is superior to philosophy for objective knowledge.

-->
@Barney

Evolution is as obvious as creation is, if you think about it logically. Even if the precise details of past events and processes are often a tad sketchy.

We ourselves, are the instigators of technological evolution.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Einsteins theory was developed by mathematics (not experimentation) and confirmed recently through observation (not experimentation) of gravity waves. Sure we can experimentally verify some aspexts of his theory, but not the whole thing. The same applies to evolution.

evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution describes that fact.

And i disagree, returning smarty comments has had excellent results in calming people down from their hype and continuing a productive conversation. It is unfortunate you missed the purpose of my statment.

And we can deduce objectively what you had for breakfast by studying your feces, your left over dishes, and other observational evidence. All of astronomy has barely any experimentation, almost exclusively observation. Will you claim that astronomy is not science? We know the composition, age, distance, and brightness of every star without ever tested them in any lab. Experimentation is but one tool of science. A good tool, but not the only one. Thinking otherwise is a major misconception.

-->
@Barney

If you want a less technical description, scientists ask questions and try to find out how the world functions. As a medical professional to another medical professional, the last thing you want a doctor to do is start guessing and experimenting on his patients. You want a doctor to apply *known* knowlede in his trouble shooting, not making new hypotheses. Im sorry you got offended by this realization but the sooner you accept that a doctor is not meant to do guess work the better.

Im not sure what your point with einstein is at all. Einstein didnt experiment but he did ask questions and searched for novel answers. Not something i want a doctor to do unless all conventional treatments fail. There is nothing wrong with being a doctor and not a scientist. This negativity is completely imagined.

-->
@Nemiroff

If you believe only research scientists are scientists; based on the need to add descriptive a word before scientist, should be your hint as to a problem with your understanding as to the scope of the word (as you already self-countered with Einstein). I won't spam links at you, but if you doubt me you can check any dictionary. If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English.

I am sorry for the mocking slow clap. As a combat former medic, your negative words towards the medical field touched a nerve.

-->
@Nemiroff

"Didnt get to appreciate this golden article due to nyt paywall... but are you really trying to establish fact via a 30 year old opinion piece?!?"

https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=650

he is saying origin of life research has not advanced in 50 years

-->
@Barney
@Nemiroff

"Your confusion is based on a classic misconception. Science is not limited to experimentation. Einstein didnt do any experimentation, at least for his famous theroems. Does that mean einstein and relativity arent science? Sorry, now im laughing."
Einstein may not have done experiments, but it is possible to test his theory with experiments. It isn't possible to run experiments to test history, whether that's evolution, the existence of George Washington, or what I ate for breakfast. Even if I can demonstrate that evolution is possible, that George Washington is the best explanation for the War of Independence, or that I almost always eat cereal for breakfast, that wouldn't indisputable prove that any of those things happened. It might demonstrate that they are extremely probable, but it wouldn't prove them.
"*slow clap*"
"Slow clap back at ya :)"
Whenever someone ends a comment with "slow clap" or "mic drop," my natural reaction is to think that they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not saying that applies to you two, but you might want to think twice before ending your comments with a mocking put-down. At the very least, you won't change any minds that way.
"I did forget about trolls... But at a certain point, things fall short of being a real debate."
Most YECs aren't trolls. Sure, an unusually high proportion of internet YECs are trolls, but that is also true of atheists, Republicans, Democrats, people who think random splashes of paint on canvas is real art...okay, maybe not that last one.

-->
@Barney

Laugh all you want but there isnt much funny here. Scientists research new ideas or test old ones. Doctors apply known and tested knowledge into actual practice. They are known as applied science, rather then research science (like actual scientists), in that sense they are closer to engenieers, only working on far more advanced machines.

Some doctors do do research, but their numbers and scope is limited compared to a biologist. I hope this cleared up the perceived joke.

Your confusion is based on a classic misconception. Science is not limited to experimentation. Einstein didnt do any experimentation, at least for his famous theroems. Does that mean einstein and relativity arent science? Sorry, now im laughing.

An MD is trained in known knowledge and how to apply it. He is not trained in the discovery of new knowledge which usually involves a PhD. Knowing the function of systems doesnt automatically lead to knowing how those systems change and evolve, although it does give one a good head start. Slow clap back at ya :)

More related, yes. Identical, no.

-->
@Nemiroff

"An MD is not a scientist"
While I find that opinion laughable, I'll indulge by asking just what you imagine a scientist to be and why it excludes experts of the natural sciences?

"and most of those studies involve medicine, not evolution."
Thank you for echoing Dr. Wassyner's explanation for why evolution doesn't rise to the level of fact (as seen in the first paragraph: "Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.").

"This is like citing a psychologist for a climate question"
An M.D. is an expert on on the physical form of one type of animal, an animal which shares homologous structures (same bones and such) with every species of mammal (perhaps save for the platypus), to include dolphins and whales. But you think the form of an animals is no more related to evolution than the mind is to the climate... *slow clap*

-->
@Barney

An MD is not a scientist. I would trust them with my life regarding applied science and treatment of disease, but not in a discussion over what qualifies as a theory. Doctors mostly read study results, very few do studies, and most of those studies involve medicine, not evolution.

This is like citing a psychologist for a climate question. Expertise is not transferable. An MD and a PhD are 2 different types of degrees.

-->
@PressF4Respect

I did forget about trolls... But at a certain point, things fall short of being a real debate.

-->
@Nemiroff

I don’t see most paywalls due to ad-blockers. The opinion piece in question was written by an M.D., so a valid appeal to authority on this topic; far better than any written by a journalist lacking such a background. As for the age, something being recent isn’t everything; if it were we would reject the theory of evolution for being so old.

-->
@Barney

Didnt get to appreciate this golden article due to nyt paywall... but are you really trying to establish fact via a 30 year old opinion piece?!?

-->
@Barney

There are still many YECs out there, son

-->
@PressF4Respect

I can't imagine this debate going beyond a semantic battle or an FF.

-->
@Barney

SEMANTICS YEEEEE

It's a great theory, but depending on how you're defining fact, it falls short.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/opinion/l-theory-of-evolution-has-never-been-proved-151289.html