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!
Tags
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
Round 1
Pro
#1
Evolution has been proven to be true, basing on scientific evidence and the fossil record.
Myths about evolution
1. Myth: If we evolve from ape, then how come there are still monkey?
Fact: We actually evolve from ape like creatures, not apes.
2. Myth: If evolution is proven to be true, then this would disprove religion.
Fact: It wouldn't, since there are theistic evolutionists (Such as myself.). In fact, Young earth creationism didn't exist until around the 19th century.
3. Myth: Evolution is based on chance.
Fact: It depends on what theory of evolution you're talking about (E.g, Evo-Devo, Lamarckian Evolution, Darwinain Natural Seletction, etc).
So, that's it.
Con
#2
Evolution by definition is not a fact. it has not been proven true.They have found very little fossil evidence for evolution.That is why thousand of scientist are signing petition. Because they do not believe evolution can be responsible for the complexity for life.
most of these fossil have been faked.When i talk about all these frauds. I usually do not give a reason why all these frauds exist or why they do these fraud.WW2 Hitler thought white blond people were superior because they were lied to by heckle because he told them that we evolved and he thought white people with blond hair to the superior evolution path and black people were still monkey's. or all of those fake bone like the whale fossil. You need to understand why all these frauds are done.Why is modern medicine based off the word pharmakeai which means poison with drugs.Why is Santa claws Satan rearranged. Why is the apple computer logo an apple with a bite taken out of it which represents the fall of man.Why was the first apple computer sold for 666 dollars. Why do all of these big goverment thing's have these ties to evil. It is because our reality is manufactured. The reason why are food has all of those chemicals is because the goverment is poisoning the food supply.Not because the food needs to last longer.
The reason why they fake all these fossil is because they want people to believe a lie. So they are create fake evidence for a lie. That is why they are doing it.The reason why the apple computer is an apple with an bite taken out of it is because it represent the fall of man. Adam ate the forbidan fruit They do all this stuff in order to kill us
Orientals are slightly ape. Black Africans are mostly ape. And Jews are close to pure ape. Hitler killed the Jews to speed up the evolution process.
Evolution is a process that try's to explain why animals are specifically designed for there environments. You may know that i think god is a far better explanation for this.This process take's millions of years. most of the chemicals they think adapted over million years only have a life span of a couple weeks.
Humans have a life span of around 100 years. If you said a human lived for billions of years i would call you insane.But saying the chemicals that they believe created life formed and existed for billions of years when the chemical only has a lifespan of 2 weeks is insane
Time is the enemy not it's friend.The chemicals need for life only have a lifespan of 2 weeks not billions of years. Unless someone pulls them out and put's them n a freezer it can not happen.
I still want to find out why animals are specifically designed for there environment.I still want to know why animals are the color of there environment. My conclusion is god did it.
It would not make sense if god put a black rabbit in the white snow
So god was using intelligence when he designed the rabbit and made the rabbit white to go with the white snow.
Dogs grows more fur during the winter.
- more fur will be x
- winter will be y
God designed dog with y to help with x
The chance of evolution happening is a not going to happen number. It is not a fact. evolution has not happened.It has not been proven.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Evolution is a fact basing on the evidence. And, the fossil record does prove that evolution is factual. Also, citing creation.com isn't helping you. While true, but Hitler did have a version of Christianity called "Positive Christianity" (Which is just Christianity, but with more antisemitism in it). And, as for Apple, that would be a conspiracy theory, rather than a fact. Also, the Santa and Satan argument is an association fallacy at best. Just because the name sounds similar, it doesn't mean their the same thing (E.g, the word dog and god.). Btw, you do know what theistic evolution is? Also, as I said there are many theories of evolution (E.g, Evo-Devo, Lamarckian Evolution, Darwinain Natural Seletction, etc).
Con
#4
There is nothing wrong with creation.com.Secondly the apple computer thing is not a conspiracy theory. the first apple computer was sold for 666 dollars that is a fact. I am sure they are some that are by accident.But the occult put's there symbols everywhere it is illogical to say every analogy is a coincidence.
Firstly the only way the fossil could form is if a great flood happened
Secondly ancient cultures depict great dragons with humans in there stories.So clearly dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
f dinosaurs did not exist when humans were around. Then why do ancient books like the bible describe dragons when humans were a thing. What about the story of how a dragon kidnapped a princess and the brave knight has to slay it. since they talked about killing dragons surely they saw them. why else would they now what they are. It was not until the early 1900 when Dino were discovered. Chinese story's have Chinese dragons. they had no connection to places like the middle east. plus there are those Europe area story's of brave knights slaying dragons
if you do not know.Scientist believe dinosaurs existed before humans.I am saying this is wrong.
These picture prove there timeline is complete ###### they existed at same time
plus there are fish fossils on mountains.This is proof of great flood
Secondly every dinosaur is huge. It is believed that after Noah flood the atmosphere changed and it shortened the lifespan of humans and also made creature smaller.it is why bugs are depicted as 7 foot tall in movies
There is also a theory that i like.Where it say's That god flooded the earth because humans in the day of Noah were tampering with the DNA of animals and were creating these monster's.We call these monster dinosaurs That is why he flooded the earth.Because they were becoming like god's.Plus the reason why we have deserts is because the people in Noah day had part of the earth for vegetation and the other part where they mined all the resources out of the earth. So the reason why there is deserts is because they mined all the resources out of those places.
this guy created said this i can not find the vid
This explains why ever dinosaur is dead extinct.It also explains why god did not save them during the flood.It also why god would kill the entire planet.The were becoming Gods.
Round 3
Pro
#5
If it is a fact, then why are you jumping into conclusions like that? Well, at least you admit that could be done by accident. Also, I hold the view that the flood was a local flood.
Con
#6
Evolution is not fact.The evidence for evolution does not prove it to be fact.
Dinosaurs for example show how bad there fossil evidence is.Dinosaur fossil say they existed million of years ago.This can not be true
Evolutionist say dinosaurs roamed the earth before human's existed.Because they think there fossil say this. They do not believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs.This is obviously false given these pictures.I put it in docs to make it more easily viewable.
fossil evidence put's dinosaurs at 140 million years
According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs "ruled the Earth" for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago.
humans fossil evidence is put at 200 thousand years.
There fossil evidence is wrong.They existed at the same time.
i took the picture from here to make it more easily viewable.
pl look at this and tell me they did not exist at the same time
you said
I hold the view that the flood was a local flood.
Is it that far of a stretch.Scientist already believe the entire earth was covered in water.
Earth ever covered 100% by water and could such a planet exist elsewhere in the universe?
They believe it is evidence for origin of life. But it is actually evidence for Noah flood
Got this information from woodwardtv vid
Again fossil could only have formed that way if a great flood happened
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?
The fossil evidence say humans did not exist during the dinosaur times.There fossil evidence is wrong.Pls examine picture's.
Round 4
Pro
#7
The evidence for evolution has been proven to be true. Also, why use answersingenesis?
One scientists isn't enough. Also, I have link you this which shows the evidence that there was a local flood.
Con
#8
They say fossil evidence is proof of how old an animal is.Lets see how reliable that is
Dinosaurs are 360 million years ago.
Humans are 200 thousand years ago.
This is false because they lived during the same time. These picture prove dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
Indian and other culture drew pictures of dinosaurs on rocks and on there ancient buildings
i took the picture from here to make it more easily viewable.
There fossil evidence are used as evidence that a dinosaur evolved into a bird.
This is false.Dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds. If dinosaurs went extinct. Dinosaurs are dead how could they have evolved into birds
Got this point from woodward vid
So either there bird fossil evidence is flawed or there dinosaur fossil evidence is flawed or both
They used fossil evidence to conclude that the fern is 360 million years old and humans are 200 thousand years old.
Ferns have medical properties that help humans.
How could the fern have medical properties that help humans. if humans did not come around for another 360 million years
so your saying that the fern has health benefits that help humans when
humans did not appear for another 360 million years. this screws up
almost there entire timeline for plants because i can not think of one
plant that came into existence in the last 200 thousand years according
to science.
the fern for example has health benefits for almost every organ. but it
specifically helps out human females with there female issues. The fern
helps with period problems breast problems etc. Very detailed to human female. God put medicine in plants
It turns out the fossil evidence for birds to dinosaurs was wrong.But i thought fossil evidence was fact
Science Can No Longer Stomach Dinosaurs-to-Birds Theory
So apparently they believed dino evolved into birds.But then They found bird remains inside the stomach of a dinosaur. SO how could the dinosaur evolve into a bird if it ate birds.
But how could this be fossil evidence proved dinosaurs evolved into birds.If don ate birds
these dinosaurs lived about 120 million years ago. Yet the Confuciusornis sanctus found in the stomach of this creature was a “crow-size, flight-capable bird” (“Dinosaur Guts…,” 2012). One of the picture captions describes the stomach contents as “a tiny bird skeleton within the stomach of the dinosaur Sinocalliopteryx” (“Dinosaur Guts…”). Dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds because, among other reasons,they were eating birds during their lifetime!
Conclusion
We can conclude that there fossil evidence for birds humans dinosaurs and ferns are all stupid and wrong
plus i only used answeringenesis for the age of the dinosaurs. Secondly there is nothing wrong with using creation site's. This is a debate about evolution.Why can i not get information from the other side.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro argues his main case by assertion, and pointing to reading we can do elsewhere, rather than just laying out at least a sampling of the evidence. He further lets himself get side tracked into wholly off topic conspiracy theories.
Con side tracks the debate into wholly off topic conspiracy theories (how the logo for any modern company would imply anything related to evolution, I haven't a clue).
I'm left with there being a fossil record that strongly implies evolution, and some of the cases against it being false, but not a real case in favor of it. However, con fails to advance the case against it as a fact. I am left leaving this debate a solid tie.
I'll try to vote on it today or tomorrow, depending on when I have time.
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
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
I will try again next time.
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.
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.
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
"This is false because they lived during the same time."
Would that be question begging?
So how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Evolution may have some scientific fact to support it, but it's still a theory and a theory is not conclusively factual.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
"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.
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.
"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*
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.
I did forget about trolls... But at a certain point, things fall short of being a real debate.
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.
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?!?
There are still many YECs out there, son
I can't imagine this debate going beyond a semantic battle or an FF.
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